Recent Articleshttp://blog.prospect.org/authors/127695/rss.xml
The American Prospect - articles by authorenFaces of the Democratic Futurehttp://blog.prospect.org/article/faces-democratic-future
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><style type="text/css">
<!--/*--><![CDATA[/* ><!--*/
#pitch_entry-unrelated[style], .longform-ad[style] {
display:none !important;
}h2 {
margin-bottom:0px;
margin-top:0px;
}p strong {
text-transform:uppercase;
font-size:12px;
font-family: 'Droid Sans';
}
/*--><!]]>*/
</style><p><span class="dropcap">D</span>emographers and political prognosticators like to talk about the rising "Obama electorate." Majority-minority, more liberal on social and financial issues alike than their forebears, this young cohort stands poised to radically transform the country's politics in the decades to come. For the July/August issue of <em>The American</em> <em>Prospect </em>magazine, we asked rising progressive leaders what they think about the future of the Democratic Party—and how it needs to change. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><img alt="" class="media-image" height="250" style="font-size: 1.385em; line-height: 1.538em; float: left; margin-right: 15px; width: 250px; height: 250px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" width="250" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/myrick2.png" /></h2>
<h2><strong>Svante Myrick, age 26</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Mayor of Ithaca, New York</strong><br /><strong>Ithaca, New York</strong></p>
<p>I’d like to see the party elect a woman president. When Barack Obama was elected, I was a young mixed-race kid with a strange name, being raised by a white mother. It changed what I thought was possible for my life. After I was elected mayor here at 24, I remember a mother telling me the following story. She and her adopted son, who is black and around 15 years old, were coming to city hall. In the elevator, an elderly white woman looked at him and said, “Are you the mayor?” When the mother told me this story, I said, “Well, come on, I don’t look 15 years old.” She said, “You don’t understand. He’s gotten on elevators before and had older women jump off—he’s had people cross the street when they see him coming because he’s black. He’s been confused for a lot of things, but this is the first time he’s been confused for a figure of authority.” That’s powerful. Obama has changed the life outcomes, through his example, for millions of black men. His family has done the same for black families. He’s changed the way we think about a black family in this country. I think that our first female president is going to do the same thing for young women.</p>
<p>Another thing I’d like to see the party do: I think the war on drugs is the new Jim Crow, and it’s failed. It’s cost us a trillion dollars to fight it. It’s cost people their lives. Jails have swollen with people who have been put away for years for nonviolent offenses. The overall result is that drug use is still rampant in this country. The Democratic Party should approach the drug problem at the root, which means treating it as a public-health issue, getting people who are addicted to drugs off drugs, getting young people to never start using drugs in the first place, and regulating the drug market and taxing it so we can spend the revenue on things like schools and infrastructure. </p>
<p>We should decriminalize marijuana. The usage rate is incredibly high, but the enforcement is uneven: You’re four times more likely to get arrested for marijuana use if you’re black than if you’re white, even though white folks use the drug at the same rate as black folks. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><img alt="" class="media-image" height="250" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; width: 250px; height: 250px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" width="250" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/neguse_gs.png" /><strong>Joe Neguse, age 30</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Democratic nominee for Colorado secretary of state</strong><br /><strong>Bloomfield, Colorado</strong></p>
<p>We, as a party, have a vision that appeals to a broad spectrum of people, and that vision is a government that works for them. One way to do that is through higher-education reform. We need to make education much more affordable through a more robust system of public financing. It’s about showing that we care about opportunity for everyone, and making sure that everyone’s voice is heard. We have so many people coming to this country looking for opportunity, and we know that higher education is the ticket to upward mobility. We have this amazing system of state-funded universities and community colleges, but students are still struggling to afford them. We need to look for more ways to make that education affordable for students. If they have to take out massive student loans, when these students graduate, they won’t be able to contribute as fully to the economy and buy a home. There are solutions, and Democrats need to embrace them. There was recently some discussion in the Senate of legislation to lower the student-loan interest rate. That’s an example of doing what we can to make sure that higher education remains affordable and accessible to everybody. That’s a message that will resonate with young people regardless of party, and it may help draw in some of the young voters who aren’t affiliated with either party. </p>
<p>The right to vote—the right to shape the future of our communities—is under attack all across the country. I think we all agree that we’ve never solved a problem with less democracy. It cannot be a partisan issue. Prior to law school, I helped create a nonprofit foundation called New Era Colorado, which has registered tens of thousands of young folks and championed efforts to make voting easier in Colorado—for example, online voter registration, which has been immensely successful in our state. People want to be able to vote; they want that power. We need to be the party that gives them their rights back, not because it might help us win but because providing equal opportunity has always been the central pillar of the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><img alt="" class="media-image" height="250" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; width: 250px; height: 250px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" width="250" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/chang_gs.png" /><strong>Stephanie Chang, age 30</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Candidate, Michigan House District 6</strong><br /><strong>Detroit, Michigan</strong></p>
<p>It would be great to have the Democratic Party do a better job of recruiting young progressive candidates, especially women of color. Studies show that women need to be asked several times before they run for office, which was certainly the case for me—because so many of us don’t think about it as an option to begin with, it takes several people encouraging us before we seriously consider it. It’s doubly hard for women of color, because we don’t necessarily see ourselves represented. I only decided to run after my friend Rashida Tlaib, who currently represents Michigan’s Sixth District, asked me to. Initially, I said no, but eventually I said I would do it because I realized what an amazing opportunity it was to make a difference for my community.</p>
<p>It would say a lot for the Democratic Party to reach out to people and help build a pipeline of young people and women running for elected office. One thing that I want to do, starting with high school and middle school, is to get young women of color in my district to think about what the problems in their community are and how they can be involved in addressing them. Learning how to write a bill, learning how policy affects us, shadowing days—things like that. We need to start earlier instilling the idea that this is something that is possible for young women. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><img alt="" class="media-image" height="250" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; width: 250px; height: 250px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" width="250" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/vilott.png" /><strong>Val Vilott, age 28</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Feminist activist and board president of the DC Abortion Fund</strong><br /><strong>Washington, D.C.</strong></p>
<p>I am a Democrat, and I vote for Democrats, and I volunteer for Democrats. I’ve been engaged in campaigns for Democratic candidates for my entire young-adult life. But although I have faith in the party, I think it could be doing much better work. There’s been a lack of proactive national legislation on reproductive issues and issues that have to do with women and families. And I’m not just talking about abortion here. In general, remedies for women and families like paycheck fairness and child care have been fantastically unsuccessful.</p>
<p>I think a lot of the unwillingness to dig in on these issues has to do with diversity. Some Democrats are worried about being targeted by anti-choice activists and organizations. But many Democratic politicians are white men who aren’t comfortable talking about abortion, so they shy away from it. It’s become ingrained in some of their minds that reproductive issues aren’t winning issues. They may believe it’s too controversial to talk about on the campaign trail. And when they don’t talk about it on the campaign trail, they don’t have to do anything about it once they get into office. That does the party a great disservice. Reproductive issues like abortion and family planning matter to people—it’s not cerebral or ethereal for them. </p>
<p>I reject the notion that abortion is an unwinnable issue. Just look at the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial race. The Democrats made reproductive choice a huge part of their strategy. Of course, they embraced abortion during that campaign because they couldn’t avoid it. Bob McDonnell, the previous governor, made no bones about supporting incredibly aggressive anti-choice policies. My argument is, why do we wait for a radical anti-choice politician to take office for a few years and do serious damage in the state? It’s pretty despicable if we only start to act because we can see people suffering as a result of bad policy. </p>
<p>I worry that in some ways the Democratic Party is becoming—well, I’m trying to think of a nicer way to say a “cult of personality.” You look back to 2007 and 2008, when Barack Obama had just emerged onto the scene and had this pitched battle in the primaries against Hillary Clinton. The party’s future felt invested in these individual people and their ability to lead. I don’t really think that’s the party’s job. Often, when candidates get into office, the issues they campaigned on fall by the wayside. It’s the party’s responsibility to push for those issues. What’s happening now with reproductive choice in the states where conservatives are pushing for extreme anti-choice legislation is a great example of how the Democrats could take the wheel. They need to introduce proactive legislation. Occasionally make them fight on your terms. If we can get into a situation where the Republicans or the anti-choice activists are as distracted by our good legislation as we are by their bad legislation, then we’ll bring things onto more equal ground.</p>
<p>Bringing more diversity into the party will help spur that change. But Democratic Party leaders have to commit to it. There’s not a lack of people or options out there. There are potential candidates for office who are incredibly talented—people of color, women, people with different backgrounds and experiences who would make fantastic legislators. But the party isn’t good at identifying people who need more resources to get off the ground. Bringing more diversity into the party will require a long-game attitude, because who do you look at for national office? You look at people who are doing well at the state level. Who do you look at for the state level? You look at people who are doing well at the county level or the local level. And how do you get those people into office? You search for folks who are active in their community. That’s where the Democrats should be focusing their resources, and when the party does become more diverse, it will be easier for Democrats to talk about issues like abortion and family planning and paycheck fairness. They’ll have the broad range of experience necessary to take a stand on these issues and not just tackle them when it’s absolutely necessary.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><img alt="" class="media-image" height="250" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; width: 250px; height: 250px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" width="250" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/tzintzun_gs.png" /><strong>Cristina Tzintzún, age 32</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Executive director, Workers Defense Project</strong><br /><strong>Austin, Texas</strong></p>
<p>Right now, there’s a real interest within the Democratic Party about the Latino vote and what it could mean, which is great. But there doesn’t seem to be an in-depth understanding of all the issues and complexities in the Latino community, which isn’t monolithic. You can see this happening in Texas. There have been recent efforts to try to build good Latino Democratic candidates. But it doesn’t go beyond the candidate or the election. There’s no grassroots investment, no lasting infrastructure. </p>
<p>In Texas, the focus on the Latino vote also means that we forget the African American vote. I was at a meeting recently where people were talking about turning the state blue. There were 60 to 80 people, mostly Latino and white, and there was only one African American in the room. I said, “I have a problem with this,” and they said, “Well, it’s not really a problem because black people vote, so we don’t really have to worry about that.” Well, that in itself is a problem because they’re taking a core constituency for granted. It means they’re not serious about investing in leadership or an agenda that means something to the people who voted for them. </p>
<p>Folks who want to see Texas turn blue or at least purple are investing millions of dollars in elections. But most of the money that comes into Texas goes to the statewide races. There’s less investment in the local races. But that’s not only where we can elect candidates but also where we can run real policies where people can see what makes a difference in their lives. If you look at a state like Texas, every major city, for the most part, is blue—Houston, Austin, San Antonio. In Austin, we recently won a living wage for construction workers who are working for companies that get tax incentives from the state. We’re still not winning statewide races, but rather than focusing on those races and putting all our money in those races, you can use the cities, those pockets of blue, to experiment and develop good Democratic candidates and good, innovative policy. </p>
<p>There is a huge amount of support for economic-justice issues. What the Democrats have done recently about the minimum wage has been great and has struck a chord with a lot of people. But there are other issues they could be pushing more: The student-debt crisis, talking about the retirement crisis in this country and the fact that the Republican Party has no plan besides keeping millions of people in debt. In the last six months, the Democratic Party, nationally, has been more progressive. If we were to focus on that in a smarter way, we could actually pull some of the libertarians. If you look at what a lot of people are upset about in the Tea Party and what issues are resonating with them, it was race-baiting a lot of the time, but it was race-baiting about economics. We didn’t really have an alternative narrative. We weren’t even trying to talk about it on the left, except for Occupy Wall Street. If the Democratic Party could get in front of those issues, it would not only be able to bring along the progressive base that it’s already supporting but it could bring along the entire country to enact that kind of legislation. But there’s still a long way to go. It’s a great campaign strategy, but we need to be building the community groups and the labor support to enact the legislation that will make a difference in people’s lives.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><img alt="" class="media-image" height="250" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; width: 250px; height: 250px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" width="250" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/sims.png" /><strong>Brian Sims, age 35</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Representative for Pennsylvania’s 182</strong><strong><sup>nd</sup></strong><strong> District</strong><br /><strong>Philadelphia, Pennsylvania</strong></p>
<p>I would like to see the Democratic Party get back to promoting thoughtful gun registration. Maybe we’re having to pick and choose the battles we think we can win, given the Republican Party’s hard-line opposition. But it’s unfortunate that the Democrats have backed off on guns. We’ve seen more movement on thoughtful gun regulations from past Republican presidents than we have from President Obama. In light of all the mass shootings in the last half-decade, I would like to see the Democratic Party step up and say, “Hey, listen, where America is on the Second Amendment is costing us lives.”</p>
<p>I’m the son of two retired lieutenant colonels in the Army. I did not grow up in this pristine, granola background unexposed to guns and weapons. For the vast majority of Americans, gun use is a familial thing—it’s heritage. It’s not about what you kill or how you kill it or the size of the bullet; it’s something you did with your grandfather and father, something you do with your family. I recognize that. If we’re not going to address actual gun violence because of the culture and heritage that people have with guns, we’re not doing ourselves any justice. </p>
<p>Every couple of weeks and months, we see instances in which background checks could have prevented violence. We see that allowing cities and urban environments to tailor their gun laws based on data could reduce violence. Yet we don’t do those things. We could also pass more laws to prevent something called “straw purchases.” We see this all the time where guns that are involved in crimes are traced back to a purchaser who wasn’t the person who committed the crime, but frankly, they purchased that gun knowing it would be given or sold to somebody who would commit a crime. States need to have stronger straw-purchase laws.</p>
<p>Any legislator who introduces a law that is seen as either anti-gun or anti–Second Amendment knows it’s going to go nowhere, so I don’t see many legislators introduce them. I’m proud to be in a state where we’re trying very hard, but I don’t see a legitimate effort either to control guns or even require background checks. We know that around 90 percent of Americans support background checks, yet legislation isn’t going anywhere at the federal level.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><img alt="" class="media-image" height="250" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; width: 250px; height: 250px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" width="250" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/kim_gs.png" /><strong>Jane Kim, age 36</strong></h2>
<p><strong>San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 6</strong><br /><strong>San Francisco, California</strong></p>
<p>One of my greatest hopes for the Obama administration was not necessarily about the policy changes it could bring but that Obama would inspire organizing at the local level. I think that’s where you’re going to see long-term change and progress for the Democratic Party’s agenda. Funding and investing in organizing is so important, and it’s something that the Republican Party has been very effective at. If you are not winning the local discussion, it’s hard to move forward nationally. I’m biased, of course, because I am a legislator at a local level, but localities can be tremendously effective in challenging the status quo and winning progressive reforms. </p>
<p>There are a couple of things I’m really proud of here in San Francisco. We’re pushing forward with a $15-per-hour minimum wage. We’ve declared that we’re a sanctuary city, which means we don’t allow local law enforcement to harass or identify immigrants. California state and national funding for public education is terrible—California ranks 49th in the country for spending on education per student. But San Francisco has stepped up and said, if the state and the national government are not going to fully fund our public schools, localities will. This year, the city gave $77 million to our public-education system on top of what it’s gotten from the state and federal governments. Whether it is ensuring that we have affordable health care for all or that we’re able to pass something like comprehensive immigration reform, Democrats have an opportunity to show that we can pass progressive measures locally that can then spread nationally.</p>
<p>It’s also important to support Democrats in purple or red states because those are the ones that are going to make more of a difference. Take, for example, campaigns like “Turning Texas Blue.” The demographics in Texas are changing; the population is becoming younger and more Latino. The hope is to register young and Latino citizens to be regular voters. If we can get more Democrats elected that represent our perspective, then we can pass things like comprehensive immigration reform. The key is, again, organizing. What works in Texas might not work elsewhere, but every state has to organize. Nothing ever replaces good old-fashioned door-to-door, pavement-pounding community organizing.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><img alt="" class="media-image" height="250" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; width: 250px; height: 250px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" width="250" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/duran.png" /><strong>Crisanta Duran, age 33</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Representative, Colorado House District 5</strong><br /><strong>Denver, Colorado</strong></p>
<p>It is scary, quite frankly, to see the disparity between the rich and the poor and to see the gap widen every year. I hope ensuring Americans’ basic economic security will be the Democratic Party’s top issue going forward. The solution, I think, lies in job training and higher education. That can be anything from a vocational program to a two-year degree to a four-year degree on up. Then we have to ensure that when we do invest in education, we’re able to produce results, that students graduating from institutions of higher ed are able to get well--paying jobs. We need to make sure we meet the needs of businesses and ensure that people have access to tools that will allow them to succeed and get good-paying jobs. </p>
<p>Another important area the Democratic Party could work on is making sure that people are able to balance their family and professional life. One of the areas I’ve focused on is trying to ensure that child care is more affordable for more Colorado families. Right now, the state is ranked sixth in terms of the cost of child care, according to a recent study. It’s a problem particularly for women, who are more likely to leave the workforce or limit their time in the workforce due to child-raising. We put a lot of money in when someone is part of our corrections system, in prison. If we could start investing in people’s lives at the front end, in the long run we will be better. It would be incredible to get to a point where every family could afford quality child care.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><img alt="" class="media-image" height="250" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; width: 250px; height: 250px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" width="250" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/dinkin2_gs.png" /><strong>Joe Dinkin, age 30</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Communications director, Working Families</strong><br /><strong>New York, New York</strong></p>
<p>People call the Democratic Party a big tent. I worry sometimes that the tent is too big, that it has room for some views that progressives find distasteful. There are plenty of elected Democrats who think it’s enough to call yourself progressive if you support marriage equality or something like that. But it’s not enough to support marriage equality—you also have to be against economic inequality. You have to challenge the power of the 1 percent. If Democrats want to capture young people’s votes and enthusiasm going forward, they’re going to have to show that they’re willing to take on student debt, willing to raise taxes on the rich, willing to lift up standards for working people. Young people are more likely to be economically insecure. They’re more likely to work in minimum-wage jobs, more likely to work in the service industry, more likely not to have paid sick days, more likely to live in cities. They need to feel like the Democrats are out there fighting against political and economic inequality. And the Democrats need to make a connection between political and economic inequality—the outsize role big money plays in our economy and our democracy.</p>
<p>Dark money is increasingly making politicians chase big donors. They may see some short-term advantage—they might have enough money to run this election campaign—but it’s going to alienate voters in the long term. The closer we get to a situation where we have two parties controlled by different factions of the 1 percent, the less appealing the Democrats will be, especially for young people. </p>
<p>Elected Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to embrace big ideas. The Tea Party is the dominant ideology within the Republican Party, and progressives don’t have that kind of control in the Democratic Party right now. But they should. The $15 minimum wage seemed fringe until the fast-food workers started working on it, and now it’s helping move up the minimum wage across the country. We need to be giving more attention to state legislatures and city councils. Those are the bodies that make some of the laws that affect people’s lives the most. That’s where you can prove that progressive models of governance work.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><img alt="" class="media-image" height="250" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; width: 250px; height: 250px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" width="250" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/gillum_gs.png" /><strong>Andrew Gillum, age 34</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Tallahassee city commissioner and candidate for mayor</strong><br /><strong>Tallahassee, Florida</strong></p>
<p>The Democratic Party has a bad habit of reaching back in order to go forward. We haven’t demonstrated a lot of willingness to bring new people into the party—fresher faces don’t always get an opportunity to lead. If we are trying to become a party of the future, we’ve got to do a better job at building a pipeline of candidates who look like the people they are seeking to represent. In Florida, by and large we are a party that looks like the people of the state. I’m not sure our leadership reflects the same diversity.</p>
<p>When I decided to run for city council, I didn’t have any party leadership come to me and say, “Go for it.” I took the initiative. I was never contacted by a U.S. senator or representative who said, “We think you have a bright future. What can we do to put you in a place to be successful?” We almost need a sort of Karl Rove of the Democratic Party, someone who looks at a state and maps out where our greatest moments of opportunity are and who the folks we should be building a fundraising venture for are. What sort of skills do we need to make sure this individual has so that when we’re ready to run them for high state office they are successful? We don’t always have the luxury of five- and ten-year planning. Maybe it is that as we approach election cycles, we survey where the talent is, and we put it up and out and give it a shot. Marco Rubio is one example of how the right was able to do it on their side. The state Republican Party was more than ready to give him that shot. I think Democrats around the state would be ready to do the same for new talent. We just have to embrace it, not eat our young or lay them out to pasture after one or two unsuccessful bids. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><img alt="" class="media-image" height="250" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; width: 250px; height: 250px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" width="250" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/ram.png" /><strong>Kesha Ram, age 27</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Vermont state representative, Chittenden 3-4 District</strong><br /><strong>Burlington, Vermont</strong></p>
<p>We’re not doing enough to address income inequality and climate change. They are intractable issues, but we’re not even having the conversations to begin to address them. I find that concerning. I think part of the problem stems from campaign finance, which is an issue the Democratic Party—both parties, in fact—have failed to lead on. We’re beholden in a lot of ways to funders.</p>
<p>We need to have a broader conversation about how to increase revenue. At the very least, I’d like to see the national party hold the line on important social programs like income assistance, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These programs are deteriorating, and our generation feels less and less as though we can count on them. They shouldn’t be crumbling before us; we should be bolstering them.</p>
<p>There’s a lot more we could do to create a fair tax system: limiting the number of deductions people can take, stopping people from taking advantage of loopholes. We have to figure out how to tax a 21st-century economy in a fair way. We’re now a service-based economy and an online economy. That leads to a lot of lost revenue and puts our brick-and-mortar stores at a real disadvantage. I would like to see the Main Street Fairness Act, which requires out-of-state retailers to collect taxes on products shipped in state, passed. Access to higher education is another area where we can address inequality. I think we’re seeing a form of educational apartheid in this country right now. It’s becoming more and more unaffordable for the average American family to send their kids to college. Kids graduate with so much debt, and it affects choices they have to make when they graduate. We need new dedicated revenue sources to pay for higher education. In Vermont, we allow high-school students to take college courses while still in school, which increases access. We need to increase savings programs. Overall, we really need to address the imbalance of money being put in corrections that we could be investing in early-childhood education and college affordability.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><img alt="" class="media-image" height="250" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; width: 250px; height: 250px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" width="250" src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/lesser_gs.png" /><strong>Eric Lesser, age 29</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Former White House aide running for State Senate in Massachusetts</strong><br /><strong>Wilbraham, Massachusetts</strong></p>
<p>Starting in your home is the most fulfilling way, I think, to find good in the political process. It’s sometimes hard to pierce through the cynicism that’s bred by Washington and the culture there. There are a lot of complicated reasons there’s so much polarization in Washington now, but generally, the more that people work locally and the more that people are oriented toward concretely doing things rather than talking about them, the less strident the discussion becomes.</p>
<p>Once you leave Washington, you talk to people who are in their communities trying to make a difference. Your hope is reignited. When the issues are your school systems and your roads and your senior center and your parks and recreation department, politics isn’t an abstraction. Politics is directly touching you and impacting your life, and the noise and the cynicism and the negativity evaporate, because there’s no time and the stakes are too high. You’ve got to work together and create some solutions. </p>
<p>Understanding the real-life consequences of decisions that are made in Washington is essential for policymakers. If your entire prism is just working in Washington, it’s easy to lose track of how that work connects to people’s lives. When people work locally, there’s a deep appreciation for when Congress fails to pass a budget—what that actually means for people in the school system, or for the water and sewer authority that needs a grant, or for a police department that needs help hiring officers. </p>
<p>I think the Obama campaign was an example of a time when people did believe things could change and that our political system could improve. I worked on the campaign, and in all those states, everywhere we went, we were greeted by young people just like me who were deeply inspired by Barack Obama’s message and who viewed the political process as a way to solve our country’s problems. One of the jobs I used to have was unloading all the suitcases off the plane and getting them to the hotel room each night. Sometimes we would get in very late, and you’d be on a tarmac in Wisconsin or Minnesota or Ohio, and it’d be freezing cold in the middle of the night, and we were always greeted by large groups of enthusiastic volunteers who couldn’t have been happier to be there to help. It showed that with all the pessimism about politics now, and all the cynicism about public life now, there is still a well of people who remain optimistic, and ultimately optimism is a more powerful tool than pessimism. Being involved is always going to be more impactful than not.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><strong>Atima Omara, age 33</strong></h2>
<p><strong>President, Young Democrats of America</strong><br /><strong>Washington, D.C.</strong></p>
<p>The Democrats’ success in the next couple of cycles depends on whether they commit to a strong message of economic justice. It’s an issue that can bring together a lot of different communities. Working-class families, millennials, people of color—they’re all hurting in this economy. You can make a case that women’s issues, like reproductive health care, are issues of economic fairness; women shouldn’t have to pay more for health care than men because they need to buy birth control. Climate change is becoming a bigger and bigger economic issue. But it also depends on how serious we’re going to be—if we’re going to actually enact policies that affect income inequality, like paycheck fairness and raising the minimum wage and making sure workers have parental leave. We can’t just talk about it. We have to do it. </p>
<p>The Democrats need to think about how we situate ourselves, knowing that we’re going into the next couple of elections without Obama on the ticket. The Obama campaign is what turned Virginia blue. African Americans were inspired to move to the polls in a way that they haven’t been in a while. The same goes for Latinos. Young people were really engaged in the past two presidential cycles, but they’re not midterm voters. The challenge is to keep that momentum going. We need to grow and thrive as a party post-Obama. The way to do that is to tackle economic inequality, inside the party and out.</p>
<p>We also have to make sure that our commitment to diversity, whether it’s racial or economic, isn’t something we just talk about. Right now, many people who want to get their start in politics have to intern for free. If you want to work on Capitol Hill or get some experience on a campaign, you have to start with an unpaid job so you can get connections. The only people I know who were able to get jobs from unpaid internships are from wealthy families. Their parents could float them while they waited for an opportunity. That means that a huge swath of white, working-class people and people of color can’t even get in the door. If you’re committed to diversity and bringing people from all walks of life into the party, don’t ask them to work for nothing.</p></div></div></div>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:37:43 +0000220864 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaAmelia Thomson-DeVeauxElaine TengSorry, Right-Wing Media, Unionization Is Good for Liberal Publicationshttp://blog.prospect.org/article/sorry-right-wing-media-unionization-good-liberal-publications
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p dir="ltr"><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"></span></p>
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/nationwide.jpg?itok=gsNXSJVG" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Meg McLain</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-10aefacc-0507-61cb-863d-e5fb6ae68882" style="line-height: 1.538em;"><span class="dropcap">I</span> can't tell if it's intellectual dishonesty or intellectual incompetence, but a number of conservative outlets have wildly misconstrued comments from </span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"><em>The Nation</em>'s Richard Kim in <a href="http://prospect.org/article/unbearable-whiteness-liberal-media">my </a><strong><a href="http://prospect.org/article/unbearable-whiteness-liberal-media">recent piece</a></strong> on diversity at liberal publications. Here's what Kim said about diversity at the country's oldest liberal magazine:</span></p>
<blockquote><p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-10aefacc-0507-61cb-863d-e5fb6ae68882">“The staff here is unionized, which means there is little job turnover,” says Richard Kim, executive editor at </span><em>The Nation</em>, who is Asian American and gay. “We only get to make a hire every four or five years.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-10aefacc-0507-61cb-863d-e5fb6ae68882">And here is what the staff at the </span><em>Washington Free Beacon</em> <a href="http://freebeacon.com/issues/the-nation-unionization-kills-diversity/">took away</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-10aefacc-0507-61cb-863d-e5fb6ae68882">A top editor at one of the nation’s oldest liberal magazine says unionization has destroyed diversity in the newsroom. … Richard Kim, executive editor at <em>the Nation</em>, told the<em> American Prospect </em>that union restrictions on hiring and firing have made it impossible to bring more minorities on board.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-10aefacc-0507-61cb-863d-e5fb6ae68882">If this were written by a first-year college student, I'd ask, "Does your evidence support the claim you are making?" Kim, of course, did not say that unionization has "destroyed diversity," a claim that is simply untrue. The staff at <em>The Nation</em> has been historically white. This reflects the institutional biases of the wider society; it has nothing to do with whether its staff is unionized. </span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>Unionization's effect on diversity is indirect: On a staff that <em>already</em> lacks diversity, unionization makes change slower. This isn't necessarily because, as the <em>Washington Free Beacon</em> suggests, management can't fire all the white people and bring racial and ethnic minorities on board (unionization <em>does</em> protect workers from managerial whims of all kinds, but wouldn't you say that's a good thing?). Rather, it's because workers are happier in their jobs. Workers in unionized workplaces tend to have better benefits, better pay, and more job security. Because of this, they stay in their jobs longer. As Kim pointed out, this means that there are fewer opportunities to make hires and thus change the composition of the staff. You might call that a tradeoff, but those of us on the left would say the benefits to employees outweigh the constraints an organized staff puts on management.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>On a broader note, no one can deny that organized labor's track record on racial issues is spotty. While the early Knights of Labor welcomed black members and actively pushed for their inclusion in organizing efforts, </span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">under the leadership of founder Samuel Gompers the early American Federation of Labor sanctioned the segregation of local affiliates and lobbied Congress to reauthorize the </span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. </span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">The Congress of Industrial Organizations, on the other hand, promoted racial integration in its ranks and sought to quell racial tensions among its workers, supporting the Roosevelt administration's Fair Employment Practices Commission. African Americans also formed their own labor unions; black labor leader </span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">A. Philip Randolph, </span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">founder of Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, went on to become vice president of the AFL-CIO, helping to organize the March on Washington</span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">. </span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">In the modern age, labor has championed not only racial equity but LGBT and women's rights as well. But again, unions' uneven treatment of racial minorities reflected the dynamics of the society as a whole; unions are neither inherently racist nor inherently egalitarian.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr">Were the staff at <em>The Nation</em>—or any other of the publications surveyed, for that matter—already racially and ethnically diverse, one could say unionization has benefited minorities on staff, who would have more job security and better benefits than their counterparts at non-unionized workplaces. But unionization has no bearing on who gets hired, and that's the point at which companies become more diverse, or not.</p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 16 May 2014 15:18:30 +0000220356 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaThe Unbearable Whiteness of Liberal Mediahttp://blog.prospect.org/article/unbearable-whiteness-liberal-media
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><style type="text/css">
<!--/*--><![CDATA[/* ><!--*/
ul.share-embed {
left:850px !important;
}
.node-image, .node-article .image-medium {
margin-left:30px;
}
#block-block-23, #block-block-24, #block-block-25 {
display:none;
}
@media screen and max-width 480px{
.noshowsmall {
display:none;
}
}
/*--><!]]>*/
</style></p>
<div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/mags.jpg?itok=RI541G3v" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Flickr/Sean Winters</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>This article has been corrected.</em></p>
<p><span class="dropcap">O</span>n the staff of <em>The American Prospect</em>, I’m the only member of an ethnic minority. That's not because I bring all the variety the magazine needs, or because the editors don't think diversity is valuable. Everyone on the masthead of this liberal publication is committed to being inclusive—not just of racial and ethnic minorities but of women; gays, lesbians, and transgender people; and the poor.</p>
<p>It's not just the <em>Prospect</em>. Journalism upstarts like<em> Vox Media</em> and <em>FiveThirtyEight</em> have come under fire recently for lack of diversity in their hires, but that's largely because they are drawing from the milky-white pool of “existing talent.” In the corner of the publishing industry that caters to college-educated wonks—a slightly fuzzy designation, but I've included most of the publications my colleagues and I read on a daily basis—racial and ethnic diversity is abysmal.</p>
<div class="embed" style="float:right;width:300px;margin-right:-300px;">
<div style="font-size:12px;font-family:'Droid Sans';width:100%;text-align:center;margin-bottom:20px;width:181px;margin-left:30px;">(Numbers include only editorial staff. Have updated numbers? <a href="mailto:garana@prospect.org">Send us an e-mail</a>.)</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//images/fivethirtyeight-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//images/fivethirtyeight-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/538chart2.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/538chart2.png?itok=pOfMfyOJ" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//images/the-atlantic-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//images/the-atlantic-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/atlanticchart.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/atlanticchart.png?itok=6AM4a77g" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//images/dissent-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//images/dissent-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/dissentchart5.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/dissentchart5.png?itok=jkWYKuSz" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//images/harpers-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//images/harpers-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/harperschart.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/harperschart.png?itok=uYNc-EZQ" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//images/mother-jones-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//images/mother-jones-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/mojochart4.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/mojochart4.png?itok=iI8ruzUl" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//images/the-nation-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//images/the-nation-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/nationdiversity.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/nationdiversity.png?itok=P2r89SKP" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//images/salon-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//images/salon-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/salonchart.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/salonchart.png?itok=dRGcUUif" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//node/220325" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//node/220325" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/tpmchart3.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/tpmchart3.png?itok=HGy3kPLO" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//images/slate-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//images/slate-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/slatechart5.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/slatechart5.png?itok=B8M8VRRM" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//images/diversity-at-the-new-republic" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//images/diversity-at-the-new-republic" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/tnrchart.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/tnrchart.png?itok=QceW3TP0" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//images/american-prospect-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//images/american-prospect-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/tapimage2.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/tapimage2.png?itok=0IFKUqeJ" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//images/vox-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//images/vox-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/voxmediachart4.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/voxmediachart4.png?itok=Lwyr9Iib" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="image image-medium">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//images/washington-monthly-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png" /></a>
</li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//images/washington-monthly-diversity" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png" /></a>
</li></ul><div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/washingtonmonthlychart.png" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/washingtonmonthlychart.png?itok=L-G-3_xU" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Nearly 40 percent of the country is non-white and/or Hispanic, but the number of minorities at the outlets included in this article's tally—most of them self-identified as liberal or progressive—hovers around 10 percent. <em>The Washington Monthly</em> can boast 20 percent, but that's because it only has nine staffers in total, two of whom belong to minority groups. <em>Dissent</em>, like the <em>Prospect</em>, has one. Given the broad commitment to diversity in our corner of the publishing world, why is the track record so poor?</p>
<p>Corporate America long ago signed on to the idea that diversity—besides being a noble goal in itself—is good for business. Companies with diverse workforces consistently outperform their competitors; diversity drives innovation, and workers tend to be happier at companies that value inclusiveness. But it's even more important in journalism than, say, at an accounting firm. When you're in the business of telling stories, lacking diversity means you're limited in the sorts of stories you can tell—or even think of telling. A newsroom filled with white guys simply lacks the same imagination as one with people from an array of backgrounds. One editor I spoke with stressed that they "choose staff for what they can bring to the magazine, first and foremost," but lacking diversity is actually a prime indicator that you're failing to attract the top talent.</p>
<p>A large part of the problem is simply that no one is keeping track. Unlike the National Association of News Editors, the American Society of Magazine Editors does not track the number of minorities among magazine staff.</p>
<p>Most of the editors I spoke with conceded up front that their record of hiring and retaining people of color was poor, but few knew the number off-hand. Most, however, knew their VIDA score—and remember answering for it. Since it launched in 2009, the organization <a href="http://www.vidaweb.org/">VIDA: Women in Literary Arts</a> has tallied the number of women on staff and in the pages of literary publications each year, releasing its counts in January. The organization's name-and-shame strategy has been highly successful.</p>
<p><span class="pullquote">"When VIDA publishes those numbers, it rattles around your head," says Franklin Foer, editor of <em>The New Republic</em>. </span>"It’s a form of shaming I think is actually fairly effective." Foer, who returned to helm the magazine in 2012 after leaving the post in 2010, says after the most recent VIDA count, he and his staff began keeping tabs on the number of male and female bylines in each issue and established a goal they want to reach before next year's numbers come out. Other publications—including the <em>Prospect</em>—have made inroads on the problem after the VIDA counts. "Having analytics and goals and knowing that it’ll just be embarrassing if you don’t do better next year is a pretty strong guarantee that things will be better," Foer says. In my survey, the center-left <em>New Republic</em> scored higher on the racial and ethnic-diversity scale than the rest of its more progressive counterparts save <em>Mother Jones</em>, with 12.5 percent of staff members hailing from minority groups.</p>
<p>The recession, too, took a toll on diversity. At newspapers, the percentage of minorities on staff decreased from 13.73 to 12.37 percent between 2008 and 2012. Anecdotally, the downturn has had a similar effect on the magazine world. Magazine editors offered several explanations for the whitewashing: Publications shrank to their core leadership, cutting off positions in the lower echelons, where members of minority groups are more likely to find themselves; people of color and members of other minority groups disproportionately took buyouts.</p>
<p>In the struggle to stay afloat, worrying about diversity came to be seen as quaint. "Up until 2008, newsrooms—especially large ones—were really really conscious about diversity," says <em>Slate</em> editor David Plotz, whose publication’s staff composition of 75 is about 6.7 percent minority. "The recession made newsrooms very miserly thinking about issues like that. The thinking was, 'We are in survival mode, we are about saving our jobs. This is not an issue we care about.'"</p>
<p>The stagnation of the industry also means there are few opportunities to increase diversity. "The staff here is unionized, which means there is little job turnover," says Richard Kim, executive editor at <em>The Nation</em>, who is Asian American and gay. "We only get to make a hire every four or five years." Among the progressive publications I examined, <em>The Nation</em> scored the lowest, with slightly over 4 percent of its staff hailing from racial and ethnic minority groups.</p>
<p>But the primary reason magazine staffs are so white is structural. "We practice fairly specialized form of journalism and the pool of people who do it isn’t terribly large to begin with, and then you look at the group of people who are practicing at a higher level and it’s just not a diverse pool," Foer says.</p>
<p>The road that ends with a spot on staff at places like <em>The New Republic</em>, <em>The Atlantic</em>, or the <em>Prospect</em> is paved with privilege. It starts with unpaid internships, which serve both as training grounds and feeders to staff positions.</p>
<p>"Most of our staff comes through our intern program," says <em>Harper's</em> editor Ellen Rosenbush. "Do we get as many applicants of color as we’d like? Probably not, but we do get them and we have hired them." There's a straightforward reason for the dearth of intern applications: Those who can afford to rely on mom and dad for a summer or a semester tend to be well-off and white.</p>
<p>While publications like <em>The Atlantic</em> and <em>The Nation</em> have begun to pay their interns minimum wage—in the case of the latter, after an intern revolt last year—most publications offer a meager stipend or do not pay at all. <em>Slate</em> pays its interns $10 an hour. Internships at <em>The New Republic, Salon, Harper's, </em>and the <em>Washington Monthly </em>are<em> </em>all unpaid. The <em>Prospect</em> pays its interns a stipend of $100 per week. On the bright side, a number of publications offer paid entry-level fellowships: The <em>Prospect'</em>s pays $33,000 and includes benefits, <em>The New Republic</em> offers its reporter-researchers $25,000, and <em>Mother Jones</em> gives its fellows $1,500 per month. But money's not the only issue when it comes to interns. Most publications put little effort into recruiting for their internship programs, and the fact of the matter is that a black or Latino kid who grew up on the South Side of Chicago is far less likely to have even heard of <em>The New Republic</em> or the <em>Prospect</em> than a white woman growing up on the Upper West Side.</p>
<p><span class="pullquote">This highlights another key reason the country's leading think publications lack diversity: the industry's reliance on social networks for hiring. </span>The people we know—professionally and personally—tend to have similar backgrounds, and so when editors cast the net to build up the applicant pool for a position, they are largely recruiting people who look and think like themselves. The payroll at the outlets included in this piece draw heavily from the Ivy League or similarly selective institutions. "The original writing and editing batch at Slate came from elite college folks of the old [former <em>TNR</em> editor] Michael Kinsley <em>New Republic</em> tradition, folks who work there came out of that and tended to be white and Jewish and Northeastern," Plotz says. "That perpetuates itself—it’s hard to look for and find people who are not like you." Making matters worse, many outlets don't advertise open positions, instead relying on their circle of professional contacts to fill slots.</p>
<p>If magazines want to make their staffs more inclusive, it requires more than good intentions and a broad commitment to diversity. "To use the 12-step language, first you have to name the problem," says Monika Bauerlein, co-editor of <em>Mother Jones</em>, which has improved diversity in the past several years through concerted recruiting efforts, yielding 12.5 percent of its 40-person staff who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups. "Diversity is something that we emphasize in every posting and that we look to as an important part in the candidates that we talk to."</p>
<p>So what happens if you stress diversity and still end up with an applicant pool that is almost exclusively white? "If you care about a diverse newsroom, you need to constantly be looking down the pipeline," says Ann Friedman, former deputy editor at the <em>Prospect</em>. "It requires you to be actively looking for new staff members, not just perusing the résumés that roll in." That means looking outside one's existing social network and actively asking minorities to apply. When the pool of applicants for the <em>Prospect</em>'s writing fellowship was male and nearly entirely white, Friedman says she turned to the blogosphere, which is where the magazine found talented writers like Adam Serwer and Jamelle Bouie. "There are all sorts of nonwhite, nonmale writers all over the Internet," Friedman says.</p>
<p>Besides scouring the Internet, magazines can also increase the number of people of color who apply for fellowships and positions by reaching out to journalism departments at historically black colleges and Latino-serving institutions as well as professional organizations like the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and the Asian American Journalists Association. But the work doesn't stop there. "Even after you find someone you think will be a good fit in your newsroom, if your newsroom is mostly white and male and straight, you'll probably have to convince them they'll be welcome," Friedman says.</p>
<p>But cultivating diversity also means thinking differently about a candidate's qualifications. Because the barriers for entry into journalism are higher for members of racial and ethnic minorities than for other groups, they often come to the process with less journalism experience than their white counterparts.</p>
<p>"The pitfall many managers fall into is thinking that the most qualified candidate is the one with the most experience," says <em>Buzzfeed</em> deputy editor Shani Hilton, who has written about newsroom diversity, and is African American. "But experience isn't the only metric. We're hiring for a mosaic of reasons—it’s not just your clips, but also how you are in newsroom, who recognizes you and also how good you are at Twitter and on the Internet." Recruiting and investing in minorities at the entry level—including intern positions—is crucial if the industry hopes to make progress down the line; today's interns are tomorrow's editors.</p>
<p>The good news about diversity is that it tends to perpetuate itself. Having people who belong to minority groups on staff signals that the workplace is inclusive, which encourages people of color and those from other minority groups to apply, and once minority writers and editors sign on, they instantly expand the network of personal and professional contacts to draw on the next time a position opens up. This is especially true when a publication hires a person of color in its senior editorial ranks, and that's where diversity is worst: Among liberal publications, only <em>The Nation</em> and <em>Mother Jones</em> have racial and ethnic minorities in upper management.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Like poverty, diversity is not a problem that will just address itself, and a broad commitment is not enough. It takes effort and planning, which is why universities—the leading institutions on the diversity front—invest so heavily in recruitment. But first you need to name and quantify the problem. Next time someone asks, I'm hoping my colleagues at other publications will at least know how many people of color they've got on staff. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"><em>The o</em></span><em style="line-height: 1.538em;">riginal version of this article misstated the percentage of Mother Jones's staff comprising members of ethnic minority groups. The correct percentage is 12.5, not 10. In addition, contrary to a statement in the original version, Vox Media pays its interns.</em></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 12 May 2014 11:14:36 +0000220297 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaEzra Klein's Queer New Hire http://blog.prospect.org/article/ezra-kleins-queer-new-hire
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/ambrosino.png?itok=-7xFULXf" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Brandon Ambrosino (Photo Courtesy of Media Matters)</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>An addendum to this piece was posted on Sunday, March 16.</em></p>
<p><span class="dropcap">O</span>n Tuesday, former <em>Washington Post</em> pundit (and <em>Prospect</em> alum) Ezra Klein sent a shock wave through the gay community by announcing he had hired gay anti-gay apologist Brandon Ambrosino to join him at Vox Media, the much-hyped digital venture that's aiming to remake journalism for the Internet age. Liberal watchdog group Media Matters was the first to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/12/meet-brandon-ambrosino-homophobes-favorite-gay/198461">sound the alarm</a>, but within a day, gay-rights supporters—from <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/13/brandon_ambrosino_to_vox_he_s_unbelievably_terrible.html">Mark Stern at <em>Slate</em></a> to <a href="http://americablog.com/2014/03/hipster-homophobia-ezra-klein-hires-jerry-falwell-loving-gay-bashing-gay-vox.html">John Aravosis at AmericaBlog</a>—had joined the chorus of voices asking Klein:<em> </em><em>What were you thinking?</em></p>
<p>The problem with hiring Ambrosino is not that Klein isn't entitled to bring someone on board whose views the gay community finds distasteful. It's that Ambrosino's quick rise to notoriety—and now, his ticket aboard the profession’s hottest new upstart—is an object lesson in the way new media equates click-bait contrarianism with serious thought and gives hacks a platform in the name of ideological balance.</p>
<p>Ambrosino, who enrolled in Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in 2003,* has earned his name as a journalist—and his coveted spot at Vox Media—by being the gay writer who comes to the defense of gay-rights antagonists. He most recently stirred up a storm by proclaiming, at <em>The New Republic</em>, that homosexuality is a choice and that he has chosen to be gay. <em>Time</em> magazine <a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/">gave him space</a> to call gays the <em>real </em>bigots for piling on <em>Duck Dynasty</em>'s Phil Robertson, who had equated homosexuality with bestiality and said gays weren't going to heaven (still, Ambrosino says he wouldn't mind going fishing with the guy). At <em>The Atlantic</em>, Ambrosino <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/being-gay-at-jerry-falwells-university/274578/">threw his hat in the ring</a> for the founder of his alma mater, who blamed September 11 on gays and accused them of trying to "recruit" children; Ambrosino says liberals like Bill Maher have slandered the Moral Majority founder and says, in Falwell's defense, that the guy with the "big fat smile" probably wouldn't have had him stoned to death if he'd known about Ambrosino's sexuality. Ambrosino also defends the views of ex-gay therapists and same-sex marriage opponents, whom he says aren't motivated by bigotry. <span style="line-height: 1.538em;">In </span><a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-pride-doma-20130627,0,7848296.story" style="line-height: 1.538em;"><em>The</em> <em>Baltimore Sun</em></a><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">, Ambrosino went after the guys in "butt-less chaps and high-heels" at gay-pride marches who earn society's prejudice with their "hypersexual antics": “I think there is a subversive power in living out my gay life in a way that seeks to emphasize the common ground I share with straight communities,” he wrote. “I don't want to participate in an event that seeks to highlight how countercultural I am.” </span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Unsurprisingly, the religious right has been </span><a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-struggles-make-sense-term-heteronormative" style="line-height: 1.538em;">thrilled to find an acolyte among the fallen</a><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Gay intellectuals like Andrew Sullivan or Jonathan Rauch may occasionally ruffle queer folks' feathers for going against the grain when it comes to hate-crime laws, say, or the right of for-profit businesses to turn away gay customers. But Ambrosino should not be thought of in this mold. Whereas Sullivan's and Rauch's positions are thoughtfully staked out and stem from nuanced views about the role of government, Ambrosino's iconoclasm amounts to heedless self-promotion. H</span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">is gross distortions of mainstream gay views and stunning lack of fluency in the basic language of gay equality reveals him to be little but a feckless provocateur. His mischaracterization of 20th-century philosopher Michel Foucault—Ambrosino warps the philosopher’s idea that sexuality is a “social construct” to justify his view that gays choose their sexuality—has </span><a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/04/sexuality_as_social_construct_foucault_is_misunderstood_by_conservatives.html" style="line-height: 1.538em;">gotten him called out by academics</a><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">. But his use of nonsensical phrases like "intersexed crossdressers" (intersexuality, a medical condition, has nothing to do with cross-dressing) and penchant for referring to transsexualism as a "sexual choice" (it's not about sexuality) show that his </span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">lack of familiarity with his subject matter</span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"> runs even deeper.</span></p>
<p>So the big question: Why has a string of editors, culminating with Klein, given this guy a platform? In an interview on Wednesday evening, Klein told me he hadn't read the pieces that had kicked up so much dust before bringing Ambrosino on but did so once he began facing criticism for the hire. <span class="pullquote">“I don’t want to pretend that I have the context and the background to perfectly or authoritatively judge this debate," Klein said. "But when I read his pieces, I didn’t come away with the impression that he holds an iota of homophobia.” </span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">“Homophobia”—which activists too often use as shorthand to describe anti-gay views that don’t necessarily stem from fear—may be the wrong word for it. But even a cursory read through Ambrosino's writings should raise red flags. Klein, though, seems mystified by the blowback. He acknowledges that he is new to the process of staffing an enterprise like Vox. “I gotta be honest,” he said. “With a lot of this stuff, I’m trying to figure out what success means.”</span></p>
<p>It’s unclear what role Ambrosino will play in Vox’s coverage of LGBT issues; Klein stressed that he hired Ambrosino as a writing fellow, part of a training program for young journalists. But the fact that the hiring process failed to raise any questions about Ambrosino's journalism raises questions about the kind of oversight he’ll receive at Vox. Plus, as a gay-rights advocate and friend of mine remarked, only half in jest, “After that he’ll have a star-studded résumé and free rein to antagonize us for years!”</p>
<p>Klein has come under fire for the lack of racial and gender diversity among Vox's announced <a href="http://TK">hires</a>, and his decision to hire Ambrosino shows how much he has to learn about genuine diversity. Klein told me he found Ambrosino's background as a gay Christian compelling and is trying to cultivate "ideological diversity” as well as gender and racial diversity at Vox. While he has a number of female hires in the pipeline, Klein said he is struggling to find racial minorities for the venture, adding: “I also want to say, other kinds of diversity are important—ideological diversity." I asked Klein what he meant by ideological diversity. “It’s not that I have a quota that I need Republicans,” he said; he just doesn't want a staff where “everybody thinks the same way.” This is a noble impulse, and varying viewpoints certainly do enliven intellectual debate. But Ambrosino’s views aren’t merely different; they’re ill-informed and dishonest. The grand irony here is that Klein himself has made a career out of being a centrist wonk who’s careful with facts. </p>
<p>Vox's decision to hire Ambrosino shows why it's so important to have diversity not just among writers but also among the management at journalistic institutions. As Klein admits, he’s not the best judge of journalism on LBGT issues. Which is sort of the point: Not having a gay person in Vox’s leadership—someone who is familiar with the fault lines and sensitivities of the debate—leaves editors vulnerable to making tone-deaf decisions. If Klein wanted a smart young voice on gay rights, he had scores of brilliant, journalistically sound, responsible queer journalists to choose from—<em>Slate</em>’s Stern comes immediately to mind, as does <em>Metro Weekly</em>’s Justin Snow. Perhaps Klein didn’t know where to look, but given the promise and resources of Vox, i<span style="line-height: 1.538em;">t's incumbent on leaders like him to do more than post job openings online; if you want diversity, you have to work at it. Cheap traffic, on the other hand, is low-hanging fruit.</span></p>
<p>Ambrosino fits a mold the bright new media loves: He's a nerdy white kid whose contrarian views stir the pot. There is no question, especially given the sketchy quality of Ambrosino's work, that the allure of having someone gay parrot anti-gay views has led editors to look at him and think, "interesting." His formula is tired, if effective: He throws bombs into the gay community, and his editors call the explosion a debate. It's disappointing, to say the least, that a journalism venture with the tremendous promise and resources of Vox Media is relying on that cheap trick. </p>
<p><strong>ADDENDUM</strong>: <span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Ezra Klein has taken issue, via e-mail message, with my characterization of his reading of Ambrosino’s work prior to hiring him: </span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">“I read most of the stories of Brandon's that became controversial prior to the hire," Klein writes. "I didn't read everything he's ever written, of course, but the impression your story appears to have given folks—that I read nothing he did before hiring him—is wrong, and I'd appreciate a clarification.”</span></p>
<p>The story accurately reflects the notes I took during my interview with Klein. Here are the relevant notes, quoting Klein's answer to my question about his familiarity with Ambrosino's controversial stories before the hiring:</p>
<blockquote><p>The piece about Brandon’s experience at Liberty University was a personal narrative that showed the way people who have a pretty bigoted worldview react with more compassion when confronted with a person. The <em>TNR</em> piece, read today—it seemed to be saying that the exclusion of gay people is wrong no matter what reason their gay is. Seemed to me incredibly strong argument against morality of discrimination in any context. These things have clearly raised alarm bells that speak to a debate that I am not always in. Definitely didn’t read them, but when I did didn’t come away with the impression that he holds an iota of homophobia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Klein has <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ezraklein/posts/10152347488818410">elaborated in a post on Facebook</a> that he read "a lot of" of Ambrosino’s previous published work before hiring him and gave him an extensive writing test that required him to write eight news articles and two explainers—more than 5,000 words. </p>
<p>*CORRECTION: An earlier version of this piece stated Ambrosino's age as 23. He enrolled at Liberty University in 2003, which would make him 27-28.</p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:07:18 +0000219933 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaCPAC’s Second-Class Gayshttp://blog.prospect.org/article/cpac%E2%80%99s-second-class-gays
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><style type="text/css">
<!--/*--><![CDATA[/* ><!--*/
div.region-in-article-ad {display:none !important;}
/*--><!]]>*/
</style></p>
<div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/cpacwide.jpg?itok=HoYvDPWf" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">AP Photo/Susan Walsh</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<p>Texas governor Rick Perry speaks at the Conservative Political Action Committee's annual conference in National Harbor, Maryland this morning.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class="dropcap">W</span>atching gay conservatives try to make their way in the GOP is like having a friend in an emotionally abusive relationship. Despite the victim's best attempts to placate the abuser, tensions mount until there's a big blowup. Your friend denounces the guy, packs their bags, and resolves to leave. But next you hear, suddenly everything's fine; the abuser has apologized—he's been under a lot of stress lately—and getting out was a bad idea anyway.</p>
<p>At this week's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), gays and the GOP are in another one of their reconciliation phases. After raising hell for being knocked off the list of sponsors in 2011, the leadership of gay Republican group GOProud is back to keeping up appearances. "The relationship between GOProud and the American Conservative Union has been frayed in the past," says Ross Hemminger, the group's executive co-director. "Our big focus now is rebuilding the relationship."</p>
<p>For those not familiar with the saga: When GOProud, a gay Tea Party group formed in 2009, was allowed to co-sponsor CPAC in 2010 and 2011, it prompted established conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America to boycott the yearly event. Cleta Mitchell, a board member at the American Conservative Union (ACU), which sponsors CPAC, encouraged organizations to pull out of the conference and convinced incoming ACU chairman Alan Cárdenas to call for a vote excluding groups that engage in "homosexual advocacy" from the following year's event. The board <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/goproud-and-birchers-ousted-as-cpac-co-sponsors-david-horowitz-survives-vote/">voted to shut out GOProud</a>, which has been barred from the conference since 2012. GOProud founders Jimmy LaSalvia and Chris Barron criticized the ACU for its decision—Barron went as far as <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/06/cpacs-big-gay-headache/">calling</a> Mitchell a "nasty bigot" in an interview with Metro Weekly. In 2012, the pair stepped back from the organization and allowed a new, less-battle-weary crop to take their place. Former GOProud summer interns Ross Hemminger and Matt Bechstein took the helm of the organization in 2013.</p>
<p>This year, GOProud didn't ask to co-sponsor CPAC or even to set up an informational booth—the organization's leaders say they are focused on rebuilding and establishing chapters around the country—but was granted the privilege of attending. The ACU and some members of the media touted this as a big step forward. "Meet the kinder, gentler Conservative Political Action Conference," <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/cpac-welcomes-gay-rights-groups-after-years-of-exclusion-20140219">declared</a> the National Journal's Beth Reinhard in a glowing piece about the ACU's change of heart. Not only will GOProud members be let in the door; they're also welcome to sit in the audience at the conference's various panels and presentations just like regular, heterosexual attendees. Hearing Hemminger describe it, the current relationship between GOProud and the ACU sounds peachy. "We put in our request to attend and were immediately accommodated," he says. "There was no hatred or anti-gay bigotry."</p>
<p>But GOProud's co-founders aren't as sanguine about the new agreement as their successors. Baron resigned from the group's board in protest in February, saying it was “beyond disingenuous for GOProud leadership to say this is some sort of compromise or a step forward.” He <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/goproud-cpac-103713.html#ixzz2vIBarW00">told</a> <em>Politico,</em> “It’s akin to the Germans saying the Treaty of Versailles was a compromise." LaSalvia, who announced he was not only leaving GOProud but quitting the Republican Party altogether, stresses that the organizers of CPAC have not evolved on gay rights at all. "It's important to note that ACU's policy hasn't changed ever since they kicked GOProud out," LaSavia says. <span class="pullquote">"I wouldn't agree to be treated as three-fifths of an organization. It's 2014. It's not okay to give ACU a pass when they're treating you differently simply because you're gay."</span></p>
<p>Even CPAC's old flame, the gay GOP group Log Cabin Republicans, piled on. Log Cabin executive director Gregory Angelo pointed out that neither his organization nor GOProud has ever been barred from going to the conference—they just haven't been able to sponsor, present, or participate in panel discussions since 2012. The fact that GOProud members were allowed to come this year is "hardly something worth tweeting, much less trumpeting via press releases," Angelo <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/05/the-truth-about-cpac-and-gay-conservatives/#ixzz2vDKTINzj">said</a> in an op-ed at <em>The Daily Caller</em>.</p>
<div class="image-right">
<div class="image image-medium">
<div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/cpac_goproud_full.jpg" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/cpac_goproud_full.jpg?itok=kBqR9sJs" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<p>A flyer opposing GOProud's attendance at CPAC </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>But even GOProud's quiet attendance this year has ruffled feathers. At the conference's exhibition hall yesterday, a handful of activists from ultra-conservative Catholic group Tradition, Family, and Property handed out flyers warning that embracing the gay-rights agenda would destroy the conservative movement, which is propped up by the "three-legged stool" of "fiscal," "social," and "defense" conservatism. The pamphlet featured an illustration of a man in a blue suit standing atop a stool with a ferocious, rainbow-colored beaver gnawing on the "social" leg. “Why is GOProud a welcomed and official guest at CPAC, when it advocates the legalization of same-sex ‘marriage,’ thus undermining the votes and dreams of millions of God-fearing Americans?” the flyer asks.</p>
<p>While previous CPAC gatherings have featured discussions about the party's stance and evolution on gay rights—an issue that the Republican National Committee said was driving away young voters in its postmortem of the 2012 election—CPAC's program makes no mention of gays or gay rights this year. Participants on a panel about expanding the GOP tent, "Reaching Out: The Rest of the Story," talked about courting Latinos and blacks but made no mention of reaching out to gays or lesbians. This despite the recent <a href="http://prospect.org/article/theres-no-place-homophobic-kansas">wave of "religious liberty' bills</a> in conservative legislatures seeking to sanction discrimination against gays and lesbians and marriage bans being stuck down in Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, and Kentucky in the last two months. A recent <a href="http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2014.LGBT_REPORT.pdf">poll</a> from the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute highlights how glaring the omission is: Not only do a majority of American support same-sex marriage; a majority of Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Jews do.</p>
<p>But at least for the moment, GOProud leaders seem happier with conservatives' silence at CPAC than with an outright rebellion. “We're playing nice with people because we agree with them on 90 percent of the issues," Hemminger says. Hemminger points to the three tenets listed on GOProud’s website: free markets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights. “Find me a group at CPAC that doesn't agree with those three tenets,” he says. “We’re part of the conservative movement. We have a place there and we're thankful to be there.”</p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 07 Mar 2014 16:04:41 +0000219890 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaThe Citizens United of the Culture Warshttp://blog.prospect.org/article/citizens-united-culture-wars
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/scotuswide_1.png?itok=Z2HRAwS6" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Flickr/Mark FIscher</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class="dropcap">E</span>ven a broken clock is right twice a day. Heeding calls from gay-rights supporters, business groups, and Republicans like John McCain and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, on Wednesday Arizona governor Jan Brewer <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140226arizona-jan-brewer-1062-statement.html">vetoed</a> a "religious liberty" bill that would have allowed for-profit businesses to refuse service to gays and lesbians so long as they were motivated by "sincerely held religious belief.” A nearly identical law failed to advance in Kansas last week. Now, in light of the blowback, anti-gay discrimination bills in conservative legislatures—including Mississippi, Georgia, and Oklahoma—<span class="c1 c6"><a class="c5" href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mississippi-anti-gay-bill-house-committee">have stalled</a></span>, and even lawmakers who voted for such measures are stepping back their support.</p>
<p class="c3"><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">The failure of these anti-gay discrimination bills amounts to a stern rebuke to the religious right, which sees defeat on the horizon in the gay-marriage fight. Just in the past two months, judges have overturned bans on same-sex marriage in Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, and Kentucky. Rather than try to stop the inevitable, social conservatives in red states have sought to exempt themselves from future gay-rights legislation under the banner of “religious liberty.” But these "religious liberty" bills are a clear case of conservatives drinking their own Kool-Aid. The scenario of a Christian baker being forced to make a cake for a same-sex couple may rile the base and fill airtime at Fox News, but most Americans simply don't see sticking two grooms on a wedding cake as persecution. They do, however, recognize turning away a gay couple from a restaurant or emergency room as a violation of civil rights.</span></p>
<p class="c3"><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">The ease of this win came as a surprise of some gay-rights supporters, accustomed to waging years-long guerrilla warfare in states across the country. "As recently as two or three weeks ago, it looked like doom around the corner," says Jay Michaelson, director of the LGBT Global Rights Initiative at the Democracy Council and author of "</span><a class="c5" href="http://www.politicalresearch.org/resources/reports/full-reports/redefining-religious-liberty/" style="line-height: 1.538em;">Redefining Religious Liberty: The Covert Campaign against Civil Rights</a><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">," a recent report from progressive think tank Political Research Associates. "But there was a pretty effective response that showed these bills for what they are." Marci A. Hamilton, a professor of law at Cardozo Law School who advises lawmakers on Church-State issues, says social conservatives fundamentally misread the public's appetite for such laws. "I don't expect these laws to make it and I don't expect there to be much more on this issue,” Hamilton says. "The window for getting laws to discriminate against gays and lesbians has essentially closed.” A <a href="http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2014/02/26/most-religious-americans-support-marriage-equality">poll released this week</a> by the Public Religion Research Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, shows just how tone deaf the attempt was: Not only do a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage; a majority of Catholics, Jews, and white mainline Protestants now do. Evangelicals and black Protestants still oppose gay nuptials by 59 and 69 percent, respectively, though support is higher among evangelical and black Millennials.</span></p>
<p>But gay-rights advocates might get blindsided. In the arena of LGBT rights the "religious liberty" argument might not have traction, but the tactic has been far more effective in attacks on reproductive rights. The challenge to the contraception mandate in <em>Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby</em>, scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month, shares the same rationale as the Arizona law: That for-profit companies and employees should be exempt from laws that conflict with their religious beliefs. "It's really important to connect what's going on in Arizona with the <em>Hobby Lobby</em> case," says Sally Steenland, director of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. "It's giving religious liberty to for-profit corporations, which has never been done and has no precedent, and allowing them to pick and choose which laws they want to obey."</p>
<p><span class="pullquote">It's easy to see how a win for social conservatives in <em>Hobby Lobby</em> could sanction the same sort of discrimination as the Arizona law.</span> If a for-profit employer is allowed to opt out of the contraception mandate, it stands to reason that refusing to extend health benefits to gay couples would also be protected. "It's a slippery slope," Steenland says. "The <em>Hobby Lobby</em> case is not dangerous just for women and LGBT people," adds Michaelson. "It opens door of all kinds of potential abuses." That's no exaggeration. <em>Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby</em> is poised to become the <em>Citizens United</em> of the culture wars. In fact, the <a class="c5" href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/11/supreme_court_and_obamacare_contraception_mandate_are_companies_persons.html">question at the heart of the case</a> bears a striking resemblance to the one the justices considered in <em>Citizens</em>: Do corporations have freedom-of-religion rights? If the Supreme Court finds that they do, then religious owners and employees of for-profit corporations have pretty good grounds for refusing to cover treatment for HIV or any health care related to the pregnancy of an unwed mother.</p>
<p>Courts have long recognized that religious institutions have a privileged place in society. Thanks to the protections offered by the First Amendment, churches are generally exempt from nondiscrimination laws; they can turn away not just gays but racial and ethnic minorities and members of other religions. But once you leave the pews and engage in commerce, the deal changes. Whatever your views, businesses have to serve all comers. It's our basic social contract: In the interest of fairness and getting along, we have to put up with people we disapprove of in the public square. It is usually conservatives who accuse gay-rights supporters of seeking "special rights." But what the religious right is attempting with "religious liberty" laws like the one in Arizona and the <em>Hobby Lobby</em> case is to make religious individuals and for-profit companies a law unto themselves.</p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:16:09 +0000219844 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaThere's No Place Like Homophobic Kansashttp://blog.prospect.org/article/theres-no-place-homophobic-kansas
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/eeeee.jpg" style="display:none;" /></p>
<div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/ap7647942273992.jpg?itok=_66s_6ru" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">AP Photo/Orlin Wagner</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<p>Representative Ray Merrick, speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives, which passed a broad bill allowing discrimination against gays and lesbians last week.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class="dropcap">C</span>ount it as yet another thing wrong with Kansas, where schools teach kids Adam and Eve rode the dinosaurs and it's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01tiller.html?pagewanted=all">safer to be a gang member than an abortion provider</a>. Last week, lawmakers in the state's Republican-controlled House of Representatives set off outrage across the country by <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html">passing a law</a> that would not only make it legal for private businesses to discriminate against gays, lesbians, and transgender people; it would also permit state employees—long obliged by our legal tradition to serve all customers on equal terms—to deny LGBT people basic services as long as they are motivated by "sincerely held religious beliefs." Narrow exemptions for religious and religiously-affiliated institutions have increasingly become a standard part of gay-marriage bills as more and more states begin to enact equal marriage legislatively instead of in response to a court ruling. But the Kansas law goes far beyond such targeted exemptions by sanctioning anti-gay discrimination in nearly every arena of public life. Get in a car accident? You'd better hope the triage nurse at the public hospital's not a Rush Limbaugh fan. </p>
<p>What makes Kansas House Bill 2453 especially vicious is that it's <em>already</em> legal to discriminate against gay people in Kansas, where gay marriage has been banned by constitutional amendment since 2006. Unlike states like New York or California, which outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and "public accommodations," gays and lesbians in Kansas have no similar laws making it illegal to kick someone who is gay or lesbian out of a restaurant on Valentine's Day, refuse to rent them an apartment, or fire them from a job on account of their sexual orientation. "This is new in that the Kansas law aims to create exemptions to protections that don't even exist yet," says Jenny Pizer, law and policy director at Lambda Legal, a gay civil-rights group, and a member of the legal team that successfully challenged California's gay-marriage ban. "It's the exemption before the rule is even on the books." Despite claims from supporters that the bill safeguards "religious liberty," Kansas Republicans' attempt to strip rights from a minority group that has none can only be interpreted as a mean-spirited attack motivated by prejudice. As the <em>Daily Beast</em>'s Jamelle Bouie <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/13/anti-gay-jim-crow-comes-to-kansas.html">writes</a>, it's the equivalent of Jim Crow.</p>
<p>Thankfully, it looks like the Kansas bill is going nowhere. Responding to the avalanche of news stories sounding the alarm among gay-rights supporters, the president of the Republican-controlled state Senate <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/kansas-gop-retreats-controversial-bill">assured</a> the bill would not pass the chamber in its current form. "Public service needs to remain public service for the entire public," she said in a statement. <span class="pullquote" style="display:none;">Kansas's anti-gay discrimination bill was a clear case of conservative overreach.</span> Kansas's anti-gay discrimination bill was a clear case of conservative overreach, says Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia who has advised state legislatures on crafting religious exemptions to gay-rights legislation—one that could make it harder for religious conservatives to secure more narrow exemptions in the future. "It plays into stereotype from [gay-marriage supporters] that there's no difference between religious faith and plain old-fashioned bigotry." </p>
<p>Kansas's anti-gay discrimination law is just the beginning. As I <a href="http://prospect.org/article/religious-liberty-next-big-front-culture-wars">argued back in November</a>, seeing defeat on the horizon in the gay-marriage wars, social conservatives have shifted gears. Instead of trying to stop the tide of social change, they are seeking to exempt themselves from it under the banner of "religious liberty." Typically, social conservatives have pushed for exemptions in blue states like New York or Vermont only once the legislature has begun considering gay-rights legislation. But starting with Kansas, followers of the gay-marriage saga should expect to see more and more red states considering such preemptive measures as stand-alone bills. </p>
<p>This strike-first strategy is nearly identical to the one conservatives adopted after Hawaii's state Supreme Court <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/07/us/in-hawaii-step-toward-legalized-gay-marriage.html">struck down</a> the state's ban on same-sex marriage in 1993. In the wake of that scare, lawmakers there and in 29 other states <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions">amended their constitutions to outlaw same-sex marriage</a>. Now, as these bans succumb to history, the right has begun erecting new barriers. "A lot of religious conservatives come back to get exemptions only after they lose, by which time they have zero bargaining leverage," says Laycock, who supports same-sex marriage as well as more narrow exemptions to protect religious conscience. "[The Kansas bill] is an attempt to lock in religious-liberty protections before they become more difficult to enact." With public opinion shifting quickly on gay rights, the window of opportunity for such exemptions is closing fast.</p>
<p><span class="pullquote" style="display:none;">If you look at how quickly the ground has shifted since last summer's Supreme Court decision on DOMA, it's no surprise why legislators in red states are rushing to act.</span>If you look at how quickly the ground has shifted since last summer's Supreme Court <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court/2013/06/26/f0039814-d9ab-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html">ruling</a> striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which precluded the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in the states, it's no surprise why legislators in red states are rushing to act. Since then, it's been open season on state gay-marriage bans. Within a month of the DOMA decision, lawyers filed lawsuits seeking equal marriage in five states. By the end of the year, nine more states saw their bans challenged in the courts. Since 2014 kicked off, gay-rights legal advocates have sued the state of Florida, Arizona, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama, and Wisconsin. They aren't just taking their case to the courts; they're winning. The number of states recognizing same-sex marriage has doubled in the last year. It's all part of the "<a href="http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/roadmap-to-victory">roadmap to victory</a>" outlined by gay-rights group Freedom to Marry, which seeks to get gay marriage in a critical mass of states before going back to the Supreme Court—a benchmark the movement seems to be approaching more quickly than expected. Freedom to Marry founder and President Evan Wolfson says he expects gay-marriage to be back at the high court by 2019.</p>
<p>The idea that the advance of gay rights poses a threat to religious liberty isn't entirely new—or limited to the gay marriage debate. Social conservatives have raised the specter of religious persecution as legislatures consider anti-discrimination legislation covering LGBT people. They've also sought to exempt religious students from anti-bullying legislation and challenged the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act on similar grounds. In the public debate over same-sex marriage, some opponents of marriage equality have warned that if gay marriage passes, religious officials will be forced to perform same-sex marriages or hire a gay, lesbian, or transgender employee; the First Amendment clearly precludes such a scenario. Even so, blue-state legislatures have reiterated that same-sex-marriage laws should not be construed in such a way simply to appease social conservatives. </p>
<p>The real area of debate, those on both sides of the issue say, is whether religiously affiliated institutions like schools or churches and for-profit, non-religiously affiliated businesses should be able to turn away gay and lesbian customers. It's the wedding-cake scenario, where an employee at a bakery or a photographer is asked to provide services to a same-sex couple celebrating a wedding. Thus far, efforts to insert what are known as "wedding vendor exceptions" in gay-rights legislation have been unsuccessful. There's an obvious reason for that. "They fail because those are blue states," says William Eskridge, a professor of law at Yale University. "If the state is liberal enough to enact same-sex marriage, it's not going to be willing to protect merchants in this way."</p>
<p>As the Kansas debacle suggests, socially conservative states are inclined to pass more expansive exemptions. But legislators in other red states will likely take a lesson from the debacle and limit their scope; however, they will still be broader than those in, say, liberal Massachusetts. Just how broad depends on how quickly legislators in red states act. With each passing day—and whether or not it's accurate to say all exemptions to gay-rights laws are driven by prejudice—public opinion shifts more and more to seeing "religious liberty" exceptions as a guise for discrimination. "Gay-marriage opponents are trying come up with ways to stall whatever the new norm might be," says Douglas NeJaime, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine who studies sexual orientation law. "But it's really a way to try to make any right to same-sex marriage less meaningful."</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 17 Feb 2014 15:01:16 +0000219752 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaThe Devil's Immigration Glossaryhttp://blog.prospect.org/article/devils-immigration-glossary
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><img src="http://dabrownstein.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/corbis-42-15733156.jpg" style="display:none;" /></p>
<div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/immigrant_dictionary.jpg?itok=8J_yyQ6B" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">iStockPhoto</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class="dropcap">T</span>he immigration debate has given rise to a host of new words and phrases: "self-deportation," "operational control," "Dreamers." The latest: "legal status," the enigmatic term Republicans have recently used to describe their approach to dealing with the population of unauthorized immigrants living in the country. (As opposed to "illegal status"?) Given its capacity to persuade and express power, all political language is fraught, of course. But this is especially true of the immigration debate, where fiercely held views have given rise to a tendentious lexicon rife with euphemism and loaded language. This is perhaps no surprise given the (dreamy) ideology behind the idea of citizenship, the lore of American self-improvement, and the conflation of immigration with national security since September 11. But it's made the immigration debate a bit impenetrable for the casual observer. Here's your guide to decoding it all.</p>
<p><strong>Alien</strong>: Immigrant-rights advocates have long objected to this term, and it's not hard to see why. "Alien" might conjure up images of flying saucers and Calista Flockhart-thin green men, but at its core it stresses foreignness, making it harder to empathize with immigrants—to see them as people with needs, desires, and aspirations like your own. Of course, if your agenda is to deny them care when they are sick or stop their kids from going to school, that's a pretty good tack to take. Thankfully, though, "alien" seems to have fallen out of common use. </p>
<p><strong>Illegal: </strong>Conservatives defend the use of "illegal" as a noun—as in "he's an illegal"—by saying those who are here without authorization have broken the law. But we don't typically define people by the crimes they commit; that's a distinction we reserve for only the most serious criminals—namely, murderers and thieves. With unauthorized immigrants, conservatives don't even bother naming the crime they committed: They embody all criminality itself. Because of this, major news outlets—including the <em>Associated Press</em>, which sets the standard for many local and regional papers—have revised their stylebooks to advise against using "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant.” Just “illegal” has long been considered a slur.</p>
<p><strong>Undocumented</strong>: Liberals aren't off the hook for linguistic sophistry, either. While "undocumented" is less scary than "illegal"—at worst, it makes you think of an exotic jellyfish awaiting scientific discovery—it's technically incorrect. The majority of those who are in the country without authorization have overstayed visas, so they're technically "documented," just not playing by the rules. The most accurate term would probably be “unauthorized resident” given that even those who are documented haven’t technically gone through the process to become full-fledged immigrants.</p>
<p><strong>Comprehensive</strong>: When your homeowners coverage is "comprehensive," it means everything is covered—your house in the event of flooding or a meteor hit as well as your priceless collection of porcelain dolls. But when it comes to immigration, "comprehensive reform" is code for granting citizenship to unauthorized residents, which is why you typically only hear Democrats use it. It's not a total smokescreen, though. Immigrant-rights advocates have adopted the legislative strategy of throwing popular provisions like increasing the levels of high-skilled immigration in the same bag as the more controversial legalization program. But at heart, "CIR," as it's often abbreviated, has come to signal the content of the bill rather than the legislative strategy. </p>
<p><strong>DREAM Act</strong>: As we know from the "PATRIOT Act," legislative titles have provided some of the most innovative of newspeak neologisms. Because the immigration debate is steeped in the mythology of American aspiration, you get the "DREAM Act” (the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act), an acronym that’s meant to invoke the "American dream." First introduced in 2001, the bill would grant citizenship to the children of unauthorized immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors, and those whom the legislation would benefit have come to be called "Dreamers." It's a pretty brilliant use of political framing, which is why even most Republicans have come to support some version of it. Even if you're not inclined to sympathize with kids who were brought to the U.S. as children and are currently locked out of receiving financial aid, who wants to be an American Dream-killer? </p>
<p><strong>SAFE Act</strong>: Immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native population, but since September 11, we've seen immigration as a national security issue, making every person seeking economic opportunity within our borders a potential terrorist. Last year, Republicans in the House considered the "SAFE Act,” which would basically wrest the law-enforcement reins from the federal government and give law-and-order nincompoops like Maricopa, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio—who likes to humiliate his captives by making them wear pink underwear and bake in the sun—more leeway to lay siege to immigrant communities (it hasn’t made it out of committee and would be dead on arrival with Dems, but it’s still on the table). The legislation would also remove DHS's discretion in choosing who to detain. Whether you lit a school on fire or failed to signal before merging, you're going to jail. "Safety first!” </p>
<p><strong>Amnesty</strong>: Despite the fact that Republicans' Lord and Savior Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to approximately 4 million unauthorized immigrants in the 1980s, it's since become the most powerful watchword for those who see the unauthorized as vermin sucking on the rich blood of America. Playing into the law-and-order frame, Republicans use it histrionically whenever someone attempts to give the current batch of unauthorized immigrants any rights. For the abominable administrative crime of overstaying a visa or crossing the border without authorization, there needs to be some retribution, which is why those who support immigrant rights do their best to avoid being accused of giving away citizenship for free. Instead, they use ...</p>
<p><strong>Path to Citizenship</strong>: The term was invented to provide political cover for supporters of immigrant rights. Despite the fact that all most of us did to become citizens was plop out of our mothers, we insist that, for others, it is a privilege that must be earned. You have to prove not only that you're good for the economy, but that you can <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/06/15/laugh-or-cry-video-shows-d-c-tourists-cant-answer-basic-civics-questions/">beat most Americans in a test of civic knowledge</a>. The mighty quest that ends with getting a green card is called the "path to citizenship." But for the rest of us citizenship was an accidental destination, not a journey. </p>
<p><strong>No Special Path</strong>: In the current debate—one that's changed little since George W. Bush's ill-fated attempt to reform the system—Republicans have objected to the unauthorized getting citizenship on the grounds that they have broken the law and should not be rewarded for this criminality. To highlight what they see as a grave assault on justice, they make sure to say they oppose a "special path" to citizenship that does not include hefty fines, years of waiting, and declaring yourself a criminal. It's a bit like "special rights," which Republicans use to refer to non-discrimination protections for gays, lesbians, and transgender people—making it sound more like a corporate perk than something granted by the Constitution.</p>
<p><strong>Legal Status</strong>: Realizing it's impractical to try to deport 12 million people—<em>you don't say</em>!— some Republicans have come around to the idea of accepting that they'll be staying. But lest they invoke the ire of the Tea Party amnesty police, they can't come out and say it. Instead, Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner now say they support granting "legal status." The term is intentionally vague. It means those living here without authorization will be able to live and work in the U.S. without fear of being deported, but it's not yet clear whether they will receive citizenship—the real flashpoint of the debate—and if so, how. One proposal that could bring Democrats and Republicans together would be to merge them into existing immigration channels, which would be widened so people can actually get through over time. To make it sound even tougher, some Republicans have begun calling this … </p>
<p><strong>Probation</strong>: Those conservatives who actually want life for immigrants to be tolerable are in the unenviable position of having to appease their more radical counterparts and constituents. How to do this? By making the process of applying for citizenship sound like a punishment. Hence "probation," which Tea Party darling Paul Ryan recently used to describe the period after which unauthorized residents are granted “legal status” but before they are eligible to apply for a green card. If "probation" doesn't do the trick, Republicans might try “purgatory.”</p>
<p><strong>Secure the Border</strong>: One of the Obama administration's greatest political bungles has been to ramp up enforcement—during his tenure, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has deported nearly 4 million people, and we now spend more on immigration enforcement than any other law-enforcement efforts combined—so the president can lay claim to "securing the border." The problem is, all the enforcement in the world doesn't make anti-immigration folks any happier to pass reforms. Plus, there's no clear definition of what "secure" means. DHS has set some reasonable benchmarks, like having a strong law-enforcement presence in areas of high traffic and a lighter presence in others, and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has said that, by those standards, the border is “secure.” But for those who oppose doing anything but throwing money at law-enforcement contractors, a secure border is one that lets not a single person or dime bag of drugs across. Conservative Republicans have made granting legal rights to immigrants contingent on achieving this. Which, when you think of it, is sort of like requiring a local police force to ensure that not a single crime is committed before letting people who've served their sentence out of prison.</p>
<p><strong>Self-deportation:</strong> First used in an article by <em>People</em> magazine in 1984—in reference to Roman Polanski, who evaded his conviction for sexual assault by fleeing the country—the term gained wide currency during Mitt Romney's presidential run. The former Massachusetts governor advocated a policy of “self-deportation” to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. For the casual observer it has a weird ring—like "arrest," isn't deportation something someone does <em>to you</em>? But it's a keyword for a draconian idea: Instead of detaining and deporting 12 million people, let's make life so miserable for them and their families that the country they fled looks better than the "land of opportunity"! </p>
<p><strong>Broken:</strong> Of all the clichés of the immigration debate, saying the immigration system is "broken" is perhaps the most overused by left and right alike. The thing is, our immigration system works exactly as it was designed—30 years ago. As opposed to most other countries that have set up standing commissions that take economic conditions into account when setting and adjusting immigration levels every year, we insist on having Congress overhaul the whole thing each time a change is needed. Most of our current troubles stem from the fact that we've allotted 5,000—no, that's not a typo—visas for low-skilled workers every year. "Outdated" is more accurate, though "broken" admittedly seems like a pretty good candidate for describing democratic institutions in which majority support and the approval of more than 70 percent of the public isn't enough to get laws passed.</p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:37:28 +0000219726 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaThe Mythical Monolithhttp://blog.prospect.org/article/myth-of-the-sleeping-latino-giant
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><style>
#pitch_entry-unrelated, .longform-ad {
display:none;
}
</style>
<p><span class="dropcap">E</span>ver since a wave of mass migration from Latin America began to transform the country&rsquo;s demographic landscape in the 1970s, political analysts have spoken about the &ldquo;sleeping giant&rdquo; of the Latino vote. Every election season, like a spectator staring through binoculars on safari, someone jumps to exclaim that the beast is rousing, prompting others to claim that, yes, they spotted it, too. &ldquo;The giant is awake,&rdquo; Harry Pachon, then-head of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, told <em style="line-height: 1.538em;">The Miami Herald</em> in 1988, the same year <em style="line-height: 1.538em;">The New York Times</em> made much ado about the fact that both Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush spoke Spanish. &ldquo;The symbolism,&rdquo; the <em style="line-height: 1.538em;">Times</em> wrote, &ldquo;has not been lost on members of the long-neglected but fast-growing Latino population, who feel they have finally come of age politically.&rdquo; That year, 3.7 million Latinos gave Dukakis, the Democrat, 69 percent of their votes.</p>
<p>To judge by media accounts, the sleeping giant has had quite a time since then. In 1992, he &ldquo;lapsed into a coma.&rdquo; Anti-immigrant rhetoric surrounding passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was said to have revived him, though it was unclear whether he &ldquo;got up on the same side of the bed&rdquo; as Republicans or Democrats. By 2000, not only was the beast &ldquo;fully awake&rdquo; but he was &ldquo;making a pot of coffee,&rdquo; then &ldquo;tying [his] shoes, getting ready to play, preparing ... to lead this nation.&rdquo; He &ldquo;flexed [his] muscles at the polls&rdquo; in 2004. Perhaps annoyed by all the interruptions, by 2008 he was &ldquo;in a foul mood.&rdquo; Then, it seems, he lost his temper.</p>
<p>&ldquo;The sleeping Latino giant is wide awake, cranky, and it&rsquo;s taking names,&rdquo; Eliseo Medina, then the secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/with-record-turnout-latinos-solidly-back-obama-and-wield-influence.html?_r=0">said</a> in November 2012 shortly after election results rolled in. By supporting <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/08/16/priebus-romneys-self-deportation-comment-was-horrific/">&ldquo;self-deportation&rdquo;</a>&mdash;basically, making life for the nearly 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country so miserable they choose to leave&mdash;Mitt Romney had embraced the anti-immigrant wing of his party. In a year characterized by the rhetoric of Republicans like Congressman Steve King of Iowa&mdash;who <a href="http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/steve-king-still-stands-by-cantaloupe-comments/">told</a> Newsmax that for every child of an undocumented immigrant who became a valedictorian, there were &ldquo;another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and have got calves the size of cantaloupes because they&rsquo;re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert&rdquo;&mdash;11.2 million Latino voters responded by flocking to the polls and going heavily for Democrats, awarding President Barack Obama 71 percent of their support. That&rsquo;s triple their numbers in 1988 and approximately 1.5 million more than in 2008, accounting for 8.4 percent of the electorate.&nbsp;</p>
<div class="pullquote-large">Latinos made up 8.4 percent of the electorate in 2012, but only 11.2 of the 23.3 million eligible to vote cast ballots.</div>
<p>But there&rsquo;s a problem with the &ldquo;awakening giant&rdquo; story: Most Latinos who are eligible to vote still don&rsquo;t. In the last election, fewer than half&mdash;48 percent&mdash;went to the polls. That&rsquo;s low compared with whites, who cast ballots at a rate of 64 percent in 2012. They also lag behind blacks, the nation&rsquo;s second-largest minority group, a record 67 percent of whom went to the polls in the last election. In fact, despite the hype, Latinos were less mobilized than in 2008, when 52 percent turned out. The number registered declined by 600,000 between 2008 and 2010 before rising again. Only 59 percent of eligible Latinos are even registered.</p>
<p>In six of the seven states that contain the majority of the country&rsquo;s Latinos, turnout in 2012 was dismal. On Election Day, eligible Latinos voted at a rate of only 39 percent in Texas, 40 percent in Arizona, 49 percent in California, 52 percent in Colorado and Nevada, and 56 percent in New Mexico. The 2012 election did feature one genuine bright spot: Florida, where Latinos turned out at a rate of 62 percent, eclipsing white turnout for the first time and boosting Obama to an easier-than-expected victory.</p>
<p>The Latino demographic is getting bigger, but the proportion of those who vote has hardly budged in 20 years, remaining in the 45 percent to 50 percent range. &ldquo;Any growth you see in voting patterns is largely attributable to the sheer numbers of growth in the population,&rdquo; says <a href="http://stephenanuno.com/">Stephen Nuño</a>, an assistant professor of political science at Northern Arizona University who studies Latino political participation and mobilization.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Even so, Latinos have the potential to radically remake American politics. The 2010 census counted 50.5 million Latino Americans, making up 16 percent of the U.S. population, 42 percent of whom are eligible to vote. If Latino turnout were the same as it is for black or white voters, their share of the electorate would be 16 percent&mdash;double what it is today.&nbsp;</p>
<p>At different times, both Republicans and Democrats have hoped to cash in. Last decade, George W. Bush and his political Svengali, Karl Rove, dreamed of creating a &ldquo;permanent Republican majority&rdquo; bolstered by strong Latino backing. Rove <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323873904578569480696746650">helped George W. Bush capture 40 percent of Latino voters in 2004</a> by aggressively courting them and calling for immigration reform. But since 2006, when the immigration debate brought the xenophobes out of the GOP woodwork, the number of Latinos who identify or lean Democrat has jumped by 15 percent. Even Cuban Americans, a majority of whom were registered Republicans in 2006, are now more likely to check &ldquo;Democrat&rdquo; than &ldquo;Republican&rdquo; when they sign up to vote. These trends are apt to continue unless Republicans stop supporting <a href="https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/state-anti-immigrant-laws">racist laws in states like Arizona and Alabama</a>, quell their anti-immigrant rhetoric, and quit blocking immigration reform before partisan alignment reaches a tipping point.</p>
<p>For the GOP, courting Latinos is a matter of survival: If current trends continue, Latinos will keep Florida blue and could eventually flip Texas, putting the six largest states in the Democratic column and giving the party a lock on the presidency for at least a generation. Democrats need a strong Latino vote for another reason: As manufacturing goes abroad and union density drops off in the Midwest, the white working class has realigned with Republicans, and Democrats are counting on Latinos to replace them. For progressives, Latino population growth offers a historic opportunity to shift American politics to the left. Despite high rates of religiosity, Latinos are more likely to describe themselves as &ldquo;liberal,&rdquo; have more progressive views on abortion and gay marriage, support state intervention in the economy, and favor investment in education. But none of that can happen until they enter the voting booth.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span class="dropcap">I</span>n part, the story of Latino disengagement is an immigrant story&mdash;and a story about the broken immigration system. In all, about 56 percent of the country&rsquo;s 53 million Latinos are ineligible to vote. Latinos are young, too, and young people are notoriously apathetic. According to calculations from the Pew Hispanic Center, Latinos&rsquo; median age is 27, compared with 33 for blacks, 36 for Asian Americans, and 40 for whites. Among Latinos born in the U.S., the median age is 18&mdash;just barely eligible. But the problem goes deeper: Young Latino voters are even more disengaged than their black and white counterparts. Only 34 percent of Latinos between the ages of 18 and 24 cast ballots in 2012, compared with 42 percent of whites and 48 percent of blacks. When young people vote, they tend to continue voting. What&rsquo;s most striking is that, as opposed to any other immigrant group, Latino political participation declines from the first generation to the second.&nbsp;</p>
<div class="right-margin indent">
<iframe src='http://fusion.net/video/embed?id=363380' width='480' height='270' style='border:none;'></iframe>
<div class="credit">
<p>Courtesy of Fusion Telivision/Alicia Menendez Tonight</p>
</div>
<div class="caption">
<p>The author discusses Latino voters with Fusion's Alicia Menendez.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>Some of this is temporary. As immigrants&rsquo; roots grow, the population will age. The citizenship problem solves itself in 25-year ratchets of the turnstile, courtesy of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. (Unsurprisingly, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129007120">Republicans in Congress have pushed, without success, to repeal it</a>.) For Latinos, the biggest roadblock on the path to power is economic. Around 23 percent are poor, compared with 12 percent of Asians and 10 percent of whites. Fewer own homes. These economic factors provide a compelling, if intangible, reason to sit out Election Day. &ldquo;They give people a sense of being stakeholders in our democracy,&rdquo; says <a href="http://www.naleo.org/downloads/vargas-bio.pdf">Arturo Vargas</a>, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, which represents the country&rsquo;s 6,000-plus Latino officeholders. &ldquo;You feel more intertwined into the fabric of American society, which eventually leads to more participation in the political process.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Worse, increasing levels of inequality and a porous social safety net have made climbing into the middle class harder and falling out easy. Bringing Latinos into the electoral fold will require bringing them into the economic fold&mdash;a problem that will take broad government intervention to address.&nbsp;</p>
<p>But even if you factor out poverty, education, and age, Latino turnout is lower than it should be. Something else is amiss. If you start to look at the states with the largest Latino populations, it&rsquo;s pretty easy to see why most stay home in November. Four of the five top states in terms of Latino voters&mdash;California, Texas, New York, and Illinois&mdash;go blue or red with near certainty. Only Florida, with the third-largest Latino population, is competitive, one reason turnout there is much higher. Competitive elections drive outreach. Plus, you&rsquo;re more likely to feel your vote counts if you&rsquo;re not stuck in a sea of blue or red.&nbsp;</p>
<div class="right-margin">
<div class="image image-large">
<ul class="share-embed"><li><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://blog.prospect.org//node/219498" class="share sprite reveal-twitter"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/twittershare.png"></a>
<li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://blog.prospect.org//node/219498" class="share sprite reveal-facebook"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/all/themes/tap/images/facebookshare.png"></a>
</ul>
<div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/latinomap.jpg" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/latinomap.jpg?itok=ErdBH3wI" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="caption">
<p>Click on the map to enlarge.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>Having a Latino candidate or elected representative also gets voters to the polls. &ldquo;Latinos are mobilized by feeling empowered, so if they&rsquo;re already represented, it has a mobilizing effect,&rdquo; says <a href="http://www.menlo.edu/directory/detail/melissa-michelson">Melissa Michelson</a>, a political scientist at Menlo College in California. The inverse is also true: The dearth of Latino faces among national politicians discourages participation, which further ensures Latinos remain underrepresented. If their representation in Congress matched up with their percentage of eligible voters, they would have 47 seats in the House instead of 31, and 11 instead of 4 in the Senate. According to a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Center, Latinos identify the lack of Latino national leaders as a serious problem. Asked to name &ldquo;the most important Latino leader in the country today, 62 percent said there wasn&rsquo;t one.</p>
<p>&ldquo;There&rsquo;s an honest perception that&nbsp;&lsquo;my vote doesn&rsquo;t matter,&rsquo; that it won&rsquo;t make a difference,&rdquo; says Jimmy Hernández of <a href="http://www.votolatino.org/">Voto Latino</a>, a national nonpartisan group that encourages participation among millennials. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s something we have to consistently fight against.&rdquo; It&rsquo;s a view re-inforced by the politics of immigration, which Latinos consistently list among their top concerns. Despite <a href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/immigration-protests-across-us/">massive demonstrations in 2006 and 2007</a>, and continuing pressure from advocacy groups, Congress has <a href="http://prospect.org/article/what-happens-if-immigration-reform-fails">failed to reform the 20-year-old system</a>. The era of austerity, which disproportionately harms Latinos as it frays the social safety net, also justifies the view that their needs are being ignored in Washington and their votes are irrelevant.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span class="pullquote"><span class="dropcap">I</span>t is a truth almost universally unacknowledged: There is no &ldquo;sleeping giant&rdquo; of the Latino vote.</span> At least not nationally. It&rsquo;s true that, by dint of their numbers, Latinos will exert increasing influence on national elections. But there&rsquo;s no monolith, partly because their ethnic composition&mdash;and political concerns&mdash;varies from region to region and state to state. Democrats are hoping that broad-based attacks on immigrants from Republicans will lead the many nationalities with roots in Latin America to see their political fates as intertwined; the idea is that anti-immigration politics will forge a sense of pan-ethnic identity and cause Latinos to vote together in the same way that African Americans do. But immigration has neither the sticking power nor the mobilizing effect that slavery, Jim Crow, and persistent discrimination have had for African Americans. Even if immigration did have the same unifying effect, Latinos would need strong civic groups to mobilize them. &ldquo;Latinos don&rsquo;t yet have that great equalizer like the black church to harness that power politically,&rdquo; Northern Arizona University&rsquo;s Nuño says. &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t expect to see any noticeable growth in the rate of participation until we see a rise of these civic institutions.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>The effect of Latinos&rsquo; voting power will likely be realized only in certain places. For Democrats, the dream is California. Ronald Reagan carried the state in 1984 with 37 percent support from Latinos, who then made up a mere 16 percent of the electorate. But as the number of immigrants from Mexico surged, California Republicans embarked on an anti-immigrant agenda that permanently realigned partisan loyalties. In 1994, Governor Pete Wilson <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/how-prop-187-became-the-pivot_b_3619634.html">championed Proposition 187</a>, which forbade undocumented immigrants from receiving social services like health care and barred their children from public schools. The law was ruled unconstitutional, but it enraged Latinos&mdash;and a strong labor movement was in place to turn that anger into participation. Voter-registration rates jumped from 53 percent to 60 percent; Latinos registered as Democratic over Republican by a 6-to-1 margin. Turnout in 1996 was only 47 percent, but by the force of their numbers and their emphatic rejection of Republicans, Latinos turned the state blue.&nbsp;</p>
<div class="right-margin" style="margin-right:-300px;">
<img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/whomade.jpg">
</div>
<p>But anti-immigrant initiatives don&rsquo;t always create a cohesive voting bloc. In Arizona, the unholy alliance of Governor Jan Brewer, a right-wing legislature, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio has laid siege to newly arrived Mexican immigrants. Latino advocacy and Democratic groups predicted these attacks would lead to an uprising at the polls, but it hasn&rsquo;t panned out. In the first presidential election after SB 1070&mdash;the &ldquo;papers, please&rdquo; law&mdash;passed in 2010, only 40 percent of the state&rsquo;s 824,000 eligible Latino voters cast ballots. One key reason: Unlike California, Arizona, a &ldquo;right to work&rdquo; state, does not have the labor infrastructure to capitalize on anger against Republicans.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Where civic and labor groups provide no vehicle for engaging Latinos, it&rsquo;s up to the political parties to do the outreach&mdash;and that happens only in swing states. In solid-red Texas, for instance, Latino voting rates have long been abysmal. One reason: In 2012, only 25 percent of Texas Latinos reported being asked for their votes, the lowest in the nation. By contrast, Nevada was a battleground in 2012; there, more than half of Latinos reported hearing from the Romney or Obama campaign, and 53 percent turned out. &ldquo;One of the challenges we have is that campaigns and candidates identify likely voters,&rdquo; says Arturo Vargas. &ldquo;They don&rsquo;t spend money on reaching unlikely voters, which means Latinos often get ignored by the candidates and campaigns.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Geography also affects turnout. In Nevada, for instance, it&rsquo;s easier to mobilize because Latinos are concentrated around just two cities, Las Vegas and Reno. By contrast, the huge growth of the Latino population in Illinois&mdash;a state rarely mentioned in this context&mdash;has come in rural areas, where the factory and farm jobs are, and turnout is dismal. The more diffuse their distribution, the harder Latinos are to mobilize. There is a counter to that, though, if parties and campaigns choose to use it: Advertising on television, in print, and online&mdash;which studies reveal no longer influences most American voters&mdash;has a dramatic effect on Latinos when it&rsquo;s delivered through Spanish-language media. &ldquo;What happens with most mass-media ads, Latinos think, &lsquo;Yeah, yeah, I hear what they&rsquo;re saying but they really mean white people,&rsquo;&rdquo; Melissa Michelson says. &ldquo;But if you&rsquo;re going on <em>Picolino in the Morning</em>&mdash;a show on a station that rich white people don&rsquo;t listen to&mdash;it says, &lsquo;This is really about you guys.&rsquo;&rdquo;</p>
<p>As Latinos become more fully assimilated over the coming decades, the likelihood of building a national Democratic voting bloc will grow more remote. Those who study the Latino population point to one additional reason, a well-known demographic quirk in the data. From the first to the second generation, Latin American immigrants follow a predictable pattern: They become wealthier and more educated. But in the third generation, something strange happens. College-graduation and high-school-completion rates drop and poverty and incarceration rates rise&mdash;factors that drive down political participation. It&rsquo;s called the &ldquo;third-generation slump.&rdquo; The most prominent theory about why this occurs is that, as these immigrants become more affluent and intermarry, they stop identifying as Latino. It&rsquo;s one final factor that demonstrates just how precarious the idea of a &ldquo;Latino vote&rdquo; is. In the short run, that vote will only exist to the extent it is created by Democratic outreach and Republican intransigence. In the long run, there will simply be no Latino vote as we currently, and sometimes fancifully, imagine it.</p></div></div></div>Sun, 09 Feb 2014 23:17:53 +0000220246 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaThe Passion of Dan Choihttp://blog.prospect.org/article/passion-dan-choi
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><style>
#subscribe-prompt {
top:200px;
float:left;
}</style>
<p><span class="dropcap">M</span>idway between the White House and the Capitol on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., the Newseum Residences is one of those glass-and-steel high-rises that feels more like a hotel than an apartment building. The floor in the lobby always looks as if it&rsquo;s just been polished, the frosted glass wiped down. The building&rsquo;s ten inhabited floors are near identical. Each has a long, windowless hallway with 13 or 14 doors, their numbers etched on brushed-steel plates. In the elevators, a printed sheet in a display announces the day&rsquo;s schedule of events&mdash;breakfast in the lounge at seven, yoga on the roof deck in the evening. Most of the time, though, it seems no one lives there. &nbsp;</p>
<p>On the 12th floor, Dan Choi&rsquo;s apartment is the one with the lantern at the foot of the door&mdash;&ldquo;for weary travelers,&rdquo; he likes to say. A studio with a galley kitchen, it costs him $1,700 a month. He sleeps on the two L-shaped couches that fill the living area. An electric keyboard, two bongo drums, and a microphone stand take up a corner. Tibetan prayer flags hang from a wall. Just out of view is the District Court for the District of Columbia, where he had his latest breakdown.</p>
<p>Inside the entrance, on a stretch of wall about six feet wide, Dan has sketched, in black marker and colored pastels, a tableau of his life. Along the bottom, a figure plays the trumpet. This is Dan back in high school in Tustin, California, where he was the star of the Model United Nations team and senior class president. To the right is a soldier in uniform silhouetted against an American flag, which symbolizes Dan&rsquo;s years in the Army. In the left-hand corner, three Islamic arches frame a marketplace, evoking Dan&rsquo;s 15-month deployment in Iraq at the height of the surge. Across the top, he has depicted his proudest moment: when he and 12 others chained themselves to the fence outside the White House in November 2010 to protest &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell,&rdquo; the law that barred gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.</p>
<p>On a Wednesday in August, Dan is setting up for Hungry Hungry Hippos night. On the white coffee table, he&rsquo;s laid out a platter with sliced boiled eggs dusted with paprika; mini carrots and tomatoes; Sour Patch Kids; and a dozen pot cupcakes that have collapsed into themselves. &ldquo;I can make brownies, but the cupcakes I can&rsquo;t get right,&rdquo; he says. He&rsquo;s got backup: a six-foot glass bong. The table&rsquo;s centerpiece is Hungry Hungry Hippos, a children&rsquo;s game in which players operate four plastic mechanical hippos and try to gobble up as many marbles on the board as possible.&nbsp;</p>
<div class="right-margin" style="width:400px;margin-right:-440px;">
<p><strong>Don't ask, don't tell</strong>: The policy of the United States military between 1994 and 2011 forbidding openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual soldiers from serving in the Armed Forces.</p><p><a class="fancybox" href="#choifootnote2"><strong>Read the full text of 10 USC § 654</strong>.</a></p>
<div style="margin-left:-45px;">
<p><a class="fancybox" href="#choifootnote3"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/timelineimage.jpg"></a></p>
</div>
</div>
<p>By the time an artist friend walks through the door, Dan is stoned, a fact he broadcasts loudly. &ldquo;I&rsquo;m high!&rdquo; he tells her before bursting into high-pitched laughter. Dan offers her a hit, bringing a flame to the bowl. She takes one, exhaling with a grimace.</p>
<p>&ldquo;What is that?&rdquo; she says.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&ldquo;Isn&rsquo;t it great?&rdquo; Dan asks. &ldquo;I used whiskey instead of water for the filter.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>&ldquo;It&rsquo;s harsh, man,&rdquo; she says.</p>
<p>Within an hour, the other two guests show up: a young lawyer and Dan&rsquo;s drug dealer. They nibble on the snacks while watching a video of comedian Margaret Cho. &ldquo;I think she&rsquo;s sick of me for calling too much,&rdquo; Dan says. He met Cho at Occupy Atlanta in 2012. The video ends, and the group begins the night&rsquo;s first and only round of Hungry Hungry Hippos. Someone says &ldquo;go&rdquo; and the players pump their levers, making the hippos extend and open their mouths into the center as the marbles rattle. Before the game can finish, Dan removes his hippo from the board and places it on his head. &ldquo;I&rsquo;m taking my ball and going home!&rdquo; he says. Everyone chuckles.</p>
<p>With the plastic animal balanced on his head, Dan grabs the microphone from the corner and holds it close. He pulls back his shoulders and raises his chin, his square jaw protruding over the mic, gaze locked in as if he&rsquo;s standing at attention. Thirty-two years old, he&rsquo;s not as built as he was during his Army days, but he&rsquo;s still fit&mdash;muscular shoulders and a broad chest that tapers into a narrow waist. In the lambent glow of the blank television screen, he&rsquo;s striking. His hair is shaved on the sides military--style, his expression grim. It&rsquo;s easy to see why, four years ago, Dan Choi may have been the most famous gay person in America. But then the spell breaks. &ldquo;Welcome to the Delilah show!&rdquo; Dan exclaims as the plastic hippo falls to the ground, and he breaks out into a parody of Billy Joel&rsquo;s &ldquo;Piano Man.&rdquo;</p>
<div class="pullquote-large">Dan Choi was not just the best-known spokesperson for the movement to repeal &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell.&rdquo; He was its emblem.</div>
<p>For 21 months&mdash;between his debut on <em>The Rachel Maddow Show</em> in March 2009 and the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2010&mdash;Dan Choi was not just the best-known spokesperson for the movement to repeal &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell.&rdquo; He was its emblem. A West Point graduate, a combat veteran, a fluent Arabic speaker, he was the kind of soldier the military should have been promoting instead of kicking out. In interviews and at press conferences, he was articulate and passionate, charming and funny.</p>
<p>&ldquo;The issue needed a voice and a face to get the attention of the media, the military, and Washington,&rdquo; says Nathaniel Frank, a historian at New York University and author of <em>Unfriendly Fire</em>, the pre-eminent account of gays serving under &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell.&rdquo; &ldquo;Dan Choi had a good understanding of political theater, a passionate attachment to his role as an activist, and a strong sense of righteous anger that he was unwilling to let go of.&rdquo;</p>
<p>By the time &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo; was abolished, Dan had been interviewed scores of times, appearing in all the major newspapers and news networks (save Fox); spoken at dozens of gay-rights rallies from Wichita to Moscow; lectured at universities from Texas A&amp;M to Harvard; and been named a &ldquo;brave thinker&rdquo; by <em>The Atlantic</em>.</p>
<div class="right-margin">
<img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/choiatlantic.jpg">
<p class="credit">Courtesy of The Atlantic/Ben Baker</p>
<p class="caption" style="width:320px;">Dan Choi in the November 2010 issue of <em>The Atlantic</em>, which named him a "brave thinker." <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/dan-choi/308278/" target="_blank">Read Maria Streshinsky's interview with Dan</a>.</p>
</div>
<p>Now, Dan wakes up most days with nothing to do. After the sun rouses him from his spot on the couch, where he sleeps under his &ldquo;affirmation quilt&rdquo;&mdash;fan letters are printed on each square&mdash;he takes two capsules of Hydroxycut, a diet pill loaded with caffeine, and Wellbutrin, an antidepressant used to treat bipolar disorder. Sometimes he goes for a long bike ride or works out at the gym in his building. He attends fundraisers and art openings, occasionally in uniform. Now and then, he drives to Fire Island, a gay vacation destination off Long Island. He earns a living by giving speeches at $10,000 a pop, which the Gotham Artists agency arranges for him. He smokes pot&mdash;a lot of it, he admits. &ldquo;I can&rsquo;t tell the difference,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;between being high and not.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Dan says he has no friends, which isn&rsquo;t quite true. From time to time, someone from his past will show up&mdash;an Army buddy, a high-school pal. He&rsquo;s gotten acquainted with the other gay guys in the building and invites them over for grilling parties. He knows a bunch of activists in D.C., though they are better at changing history than keeping in touch. He still talks to his younger sister, Grace, and to his cousin Sandra. But he no longer speaks to his dad or mom, Southern Baptists who don&rsquo;t approve of his sexual identity. After his breakdown in March, he had a falling out with his older brother Isaac, who accused Dan of embarrassing the family. He has drifted from most of his fellow cadets at West Point and keeps his distance from Knights Out, a group of openly gay and lesbian West Pointers.</p>
<p>Each time I see Dan, he seems to have rearranged the furniture in his living room or adopted a new lifestyle trend. One day, he had gotten rid of his garbage can to be more cognizant of the waste he produces, which required him to walk to the trash chute each time he ordered takeout or had groceries delivered. Another day, he had downloaded a meditation app from iTunes and wanted me to listen to it with him. He likes to watch TED talks (&ldquo;Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are&rdquo; and &ldquo;How to Start a Movement&rdquo; are among his favorites).&nbsp;</p>
<p>In late August, I was on my way to interview Dan at his apartment when he messaged me that a big protest was shaping up at the White House. President Barack Obama had just announced that he would ask Congress for authorization to use force in Syria. I raced to meet him at the north entrance, but all I found were tourists snapping photos and Dan circling around on his bike. He hung out for a while, texting a friend to ask for an update. She didn&rsquo;t respond. After 20 minutes of scouring his contacts for people who might have more information, he looked up from his phone and gave me a sideways grin. He was being a good sport, but he looked crestfallen. I sensed&mdash;or maybe I just imagined it&mdash;he was asking himself the same question I had been: Who is Dan Choi without &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo;?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span class="dropcap">D</span>an&rsquo;s parents emigrated from South Korea in the 1970s. His father was a Southern Baptist minister, his mother a nurse. They settled in the Orange County city of Tustin, 34 miles south of Los Angeles. He and his two siblings were latchkey kids. Although Dan&rsquo;s father had his own church, Gospel First Korean Baptist, he often traveled overseas to preach. His mother worked the night shift at Garden Grove Hospital. &ldquo;He was that kid who was always talking,&rdquo; says his cousin Sandra, who baby-sat for the family. &ldquo;Daniel was so intent on telling stories.&rdquo; He wore her out; she&rsquo;d sit him down in front of the TV to get a break.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Dan and his siblings attended church every Sunday and were expected to get A&rsquo;s at school. A popular student with a gift for public speaking, Dan graduated at the top of his high-school class. He led the marching band as a drum major and played the trumpet in the church ensemble. But he also had a rebellious streak, a flair for the outrageous gesture. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he took to the school&rsquo;s PA system and declared that the country was in a moral crisis, quoting the Gospel of Matthew and encouraging his classmates to turn to Christ. The stunt got him suspended for a day.</p>
<p>Dan had been determined to join the military since watching <em>Saving Private Ryan</em> early his senior year. He admired soldiers&rsquo; willingness to give up their autonomy and life for a greater cause. But the images of strong, fit men had their own allure. Dan had suspected he was gay since fourth grade, when he&rsquo;d fantasized about Judge Harry Stone on <em>Night Court</em>. He knew his parents, for whom &ldquo;gay&rdquo; connoted AIDS and men in high heels, would be horrified. He never told anyone or acted on his attractions. When Dan secured a recommendation from his congressman to attend West Point, he didn&rsquo;t think of what life would be like as a gay soldier; all he could imagine was himself in uniform, just like Tom Hanks. One could say he went there to hide, but in his mind, he went to become a man.</p>
<div class="right-margin indent">
<img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/choiwpimage.jpg">
<p class="credit">Getty Images</p>
<p class="caption">Dan graduated from West Point in 2003 still in the closet.</p>
</div>
<p>Dan loved the rigor of West Point life, in which every moment was scheduled and everyone placed in a hierarchy. He had a knack for Arabic, which he double-majored in on top of environmental engineering. Peers recall Dan being energetic, funny, and kindhearted. As an upperclassman, he&rsquo;d cover for &ldquo;plebes&rdquo;&mdash;first-year students&mdash;delivering laundry when someone had cross-country practice or fell ill. If the rigid structure of the military kept him on track, singing in the Protestant Chapel Choir provided a creative outlet. One of his proudest moments was performing a solo of &ldquo;Amazing Grace&rdquo; at Sing Sing prison.</p>
<p>Dan tried not to think about his sexuality; whenever someone got kicked out for being gay, he didn&rsquo;t want to hear the details. &ldquo;I just pushed it out of my mind,&rdquo; he says. While he didn&rsquo;t try to act straight, being gay was not something people saw. His race was. He remembers an officer telling a group of cadets at rifle training that the target was &ldquo;a chinky-eyed, flat-faced gook in North Korea on the DMZ.&rdquo;</p>
<p>For service members like Dan who were not ready to face their sexuality, &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo; provided the relief of a deadline extended. While the &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask&rdquo; portion was not enforced (no one was ever ejected for inquiring about someone&rsquo;s sexuality), it did make the subject taboo. Which meant fewer questions.</p>
<p>Most gays and lesbians in the armed forces feared being found out, and hiding a key part of themselves was a constant stressor. In many ways, the Clinton administration&rsquo;s compromise&mdash;allowing them to serve only if they made no statements indicating they were homosexual or engaging in homosexual sex&mdash;made matters worse. Before &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell,&rdquo; military policy forbade gays and lesbians from serving&mdash;you were asked when you signed up. With the law in effect, enlistees were no longer asked, but it became mandatory to fire gay and lesbian soldiers. &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo; didn&rsquo;t just affect gays and lesbians, though. It was also used to harass women. Men would accuse those who rebuffed their sexual advances of being lesbians, which would lead to a suspension while an investigation ensued. There were types of dismissals referred to as &ldquo;hugging cases,&rdquo; in which a service member&mdash;whatever his or her orientation&mdash;would be accused of being gay because he or she had given a hug to someone of the same sex or had a photo with his or her arm around someone of the same sex.</p>
<div class="pullquote-large">It&rsquo;s impossible to know how many suicides, nervous breakdowns, or even outbursts &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo; was responsible for&mdash;the policy itself precluded the answer from being known.</div>
<p>It&rsquo;s impossible to know how many suicides, nervous breakdowns, or even outbursts &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo; was responsible for&mdash;the policy itself precluded the answer from being known. But it was a lot. According to the Palm Center, a think tank formed to study sexual minorities in the military, at any given time 65,000 service members were hiding their identity in the 15 years the policy held sway. Then there were those who were expelled: 14,346 members of the armed forces. In the end, the law was clear. You lied or you left.</p>
<p>&ldquo;&lsquo;Don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rsquo; injured troops performing every imaginable job, regardless of their rank, occupational specialty, or service branch,&rdquo; says Aaron Belkin, a professor of political science at San Francisco State University and founding director of the Palm Center. &ldquo;It was a policy with high costs and no benefits.&rdquo;</p>
<p>As Dan ascended the stage at West Point to collect his diploma in May 2003, his parents beamed with Isaac, Grace, Sandra, and his grandmother beside them. &ldquo;I had become an officer,&rdquo; Dan says, &ldquo;something my dad had once dreamed of.&rdquo; After graduation, Dan was assigned a tour of duty in Iraq. Based at Fort Drum, New York, before his deployment, he was sure of one thing: He didn&rsquo;t want to die a virgin. &ldquo;Fuck it,&rdquo; he thought. &ldquo;Might as well.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span class="dropcap">M</span>onths before Dan shipped off to war in 2006, he was involved in an incident that would hang over him for the rest of his time in the Army. According to Dan, he was working at his desk at Fort Drum when an officer came up to him and said, &ldquo;Do you know your fucking monitor is pink? That&rsquo;s pretty gay.&rdquo; The two exchanged words. It was only after the officer dared him, Dan says, that he threw a punch. An investigation immediately ensued.</p>
<p>Assaulting another officer prevented him from advancing to captain, but it didn&rsquo;t keep him from serving in Iraq. Stationed in south Baghdad, Dan oversaw building projects as a member of the Commander&rsquo;s Emergency Response Team. The assignment was dangerous, the combat harrowing. He saw members of his unit wounded beyond recognition, and others burned to death. After an extended tour of duty&mdash;15 months all told&mdash;Dan returned to the States with occasional ringing in his ear and what would later be diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder.</p>
<p>Back at Fort Drum, still under threat of being kicked out for the altercation, Dan began to take liberties. He grew his hair too long. He skipped work. He told William Cannon, a chemical officer who was his closest friend there, that he was going to leave the service as soon as he fulfilled his eight-year obligation. On weekends, he drove his jeep to New York City to visit the bathhouses, which is where he met Matthew Kinsey, an executive at Gucci 20 years his senior.</p>
<p>Dan was careful at first, telling his friends on the base he was dating an older woman named Martha. But as his feelings for Matthew grew, Dan stopped caring about the consequences. By Valentine&rsquo;s Day 2008, the pair had been dating for two months, and Dan was in love. &ldquo;I wanted to be his geisha,&rdquo; he says. He told a couple of his Army buddies the truth. To spend more time with Matthew, Dan transferred from full-time active duty to the Army National Guard in June. As a citizen-soldier based in Manhattan, all he had to dedicate to his platoon was one weekend a month. He wanted to move into his boyfriend&rsquo;s New York City apartment, but Matthew wasn&rsquo;t out to his parents. With no place else to go, Dan went to live with his parents in California.</p>
<p>Being surrounded by his awards from high school reminded Dan of how much he&rsquo;d changed over the past eight years. He&rsquo;d left a closeted plebe and returned a lieutenant who had faced combat and fallen in love. He came out to Grace on Skype and to Isaac on Facebook. He told Sandra. He joined a gay men&rsquo;s chorus and took courses in Persian at the local community college. He also changed his Facebook profile to say he was &ldquo;interested in men&rdquo; and joined the underground social group Service Academy Gay &amp; Lesbian Alumni Association. Left were his parents. &ldquo;Will you still love me?&rdquo; he asked his mother, breaking the news. &ldquo;I love you,&rdquo; she responded, &ldquo;but you need to marry a Korean girl.&rdquo; His father said Dan needed to go to church and pray.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Around this time, Dan received an invitation to join an organization composed of gay and lesbian West Pointers so new it didn&rsquo;t have a name. A 1980 graduate named L. Paul Morris had co-founded the group. His model was The Blue Alliance, an organization of LGBT Air Force Academy graduates. After he and Daniel Manning, a 2004 graduate who had been discharged under &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell,&rdquo; settled on Knights Out as the group&rsquo;s name and established nonprofit status, they scheduled the first meeting for March 16, 2009 in Washington, D.C. It would coincide with the annual benefit dinner of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), formed shortly after President Clinton signed &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo; into law.</p>
<p>The day before the dinner, Dan and a handful of West Pointers met in a large conference room at the Hotel Palomar to select leaders. Becky Kanis, class of 1991, would serve as chair. Dan offered to be the group&rsquo;s spokesperson. Morris was initially hesitant&mdash;he was uneasy because Dan should have been a captain by now. Morris, though, was desperate and accepted. At the SLDN dinner, Dan confirmed Morris&rsquo;s worries. He got drunk, jumping on the furniture in the hotel lobby. &ldquo;Unfortunately,&rdquo; Morris says, &ldquo;we were stuck with Dan Choi at this point.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Dan was on his way to California two days later when <em>The Rachel Maddow Show</em> called. Wanting to get back for choir rehearsal, Dan proposed Kanis in his place. But the producers wanted Dan, the only one of the group&rsquo;s leaders who was actively serving. He agreed to appear via satellite from Orange County. That evening, Kanis, Dan, and Sue Fulton, a Knights Out board member who worked in brand management, spent an hour on the phone settling on talking points. The message they came up with drew from Dan&rsquo;s biography. At West Point, he and other cadets lived by the honor code: &ldquo;A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.&rdquo; By forcing him to lie about his sexual orientation, &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo; dishonored the military values he swore to uphold. Knights Out had come to fulfill the law, not to abolish it.</p>
<p>Through his earpiece, Dan could hear Maddow start the segment. He didn&rsquo;t know how many people watched the show&mdash;Fulton didn&rsquo;t find it necessary to tell him&mdash;but his fellow Knights Out members would be. No doubt some of the soldiers in his National Guard unit would also catch the program. He tried to keep his hands still as Maddow introduced him: &ldquo;Joining us now is Dan Choi. He&rsquo;s a founding member of the Knights Out organization, a graduate of West Point, and he is an Iraq combat veteran.&rdquo;</p>
<div class="right-margin indent">
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Qa2J4BOyVGs?modestbranding=1&controls=0&fs=0&iv_load_policy=3&rel=0&showinfo=0&color=white" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<p class="caption">Dan's first appearance on the <em>Rachel Maddow Show</em> on March 19, 2009.</p>
</div>
<p>&ldquo;Wonderful to be here. I love your show, Rachel,&rdquo; Dan said. In his newly pressed gray suit, he looked boyish and wholesome. &ldquo;By saying three words to you today, &lsquo;I am gay&rsquo;&mdash;those three words are a violation of title 10 of the U.S. code.&rdquo; The talking points came back to him. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s an immoral code, and it goes against every single thing that we were taught at West Point with our honor code,&rdquo; he said, picking up steam. &ldquo;The honor code says that a cadet will not lie, cheat, steal&mdash;&rdquo;</p>
<p>Suddenly, the sound cut out, leaving Dan miming his words. Maddow announced a commercial break while the producers tried to restore the audio, but they were unable to. She promised to have Dan on the next day. When Dan called Fulton from outside the studio, he was crushed. She, on the other hand, was ecstatic. &ldquo;You don&rsquo;t understand,&rdquo; she said. &ldquo;We get two hits&mdash;two nights!&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>The next evening, Dan was more self-assured, joking with Maddow: &ldquo;I think we all understand your agenda was just to make this appearance tonight the second time in my life that I actually wore some makeup.&rdquo; In two minutes, he covered everything he had practiced with Fulton and Kanis, breaking into Arabic as photos of him in Iraq glided across the screen. At the beginning of the segment, Maddow had asked if he realized that he was putting everything on the line by appearing on her show. &ldquo;Is there a possibility &hellip; you could be at risk of getting kicked out of the service because you are doing this?&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span class="dropcap">T</span>he major gay-rights organizations, which had done little to publicize the formation of Knights Out, were eager to work with Dan after his television appearance. When the Army instituted discharge proceedings against him, Dan turned to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. During the Clinton and Bush years, the group had served primarily as a support organization, but with President Obama now in the White House, it had begun to take a more visible role in the repeal effort. In addition to providing Dan with legal counsel, the group prepped him with talking points and helped secure bookings. Dan was thankful. With only one communications person, Knights Out didn&rsquo;t have sufficient staff.</p>
<p>The relationship with SLDN didn&rsquo;t last long. Dan refused to wear the group&rsquo;s lapel pin on the air. He also had an ideological disagreement. The defense network advised some gay and lesbian soldiers to remain in the closet. Dan had concluded that coming out was a moral obligation. Three months after <em>Maddow</em>, he told SLDN that Sue Fulton would be handling his press.</p>
<p>For a while, it seemed anytime the repeal effort made the news, Dan was asked to come on TV. He appeared on <em>ABC News</em>, <em>NBC Nightly News</em>, CBS, and Al-Jazeera. <em>Anderson Cooper 360</em> filmed a special, following Dan around his parents&rsquo; house. Being driven from one interview to another, waiting in greenrooms before doing a &ldquo;hit&rdquo;&mdash;TV lingo for a stint on the air&mdash;was heady. So was receiving letters from closeted members of the military and getting stopped on the street by strangers and being thanked for his courage and serving as grand marshal of the San Francisco Pride Parade. Dan quit the gay men&rsquo;s chorus and withdrew from his community-college courses. With tension building at home&mdash;his father had a heart attack in the spring, which his mother blamed on Dan&mdash;he moved out of his parents&rsquo; house and started couch surfing in Los Angeles, Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C.</p>
<p>Most of Knights Out&rsquo;s leadership was supportive of Dan&rsquo;s increasing notoriety, but not all. &ldquo;This is becoming the Dan Choi show,&rdquo; L. Paul Morris told the group on a conference call. &ldquo;Dan had always been a diva,&rdquo; says William Cannon, his friend from Fort Drum, &ldquo;but was less obvious about it until the activism.&rdquo; Dan signed with Gotham Artists to book speaking gigs for him. He once demanded that MSNBC send in a barber to give him a haircut before an appearance, which the network did, and would ask drivers sent by the studio to help him run errands. He broke up with Matthew, saying he had to dedicate himself entirely to the movement. In an e-mail, he told a friend that he was &ldquo;exhausted emotionally, spiritually and even physically. Any resources you could recommend would be most helpful.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Dan&rsquo;s behavior began to worry his family and friends. On one occasion when he received an e-mail death threat, he called the person up and screamed, &ldquo;I&rsquo;ll kill you first! I&rsquo;ll give you AIDS first!&rdquo; Dan started telling people that, like Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X, he would have to die for his cause. Drinking emboldened him, and the drinking was getting worse. &ldquo;The Salvation Army hates gays!&rdquo; he yelled at a volunteer in Harvard Square after a night of throwing back Jäger shots.</p>
<div class="pullquote-large">“He was so used to being interviewed that he had no identity anymore,” says Sarah Haag-Fisk, a classmate at West Point and a member of Knights Out. When she and Dan spent time together, “it almost seemed like he was giving me lines."</div>
<p>&ldquo;He was so used to being interviewed that he had no identity anymore,&rdquo; says Sarah Haag-Fisk, a classmate at West Point and a member of Knights Out. When she and Dan spent time together, &ldquo;it almost seemed like he was giving me lines,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;This was not the Dan I had known. He was becoming untethered. It was very difficult to tell him that he should slow down a little bit.&rdquo; For Dan, this was the equivalent of saying gays and lesbians should wait for their rights.</p>
<p>Laura Cannon, who was a year ahead of him at West Point, reconnected with Dan after the <em>Maddow</em> show. At first, she thought his involvement in the repeal effort was &ldquo;a healthy amount of participation.&rdquo; But the toll of being a public figure&mdash;of always being on&mdash;soon became apparent. &ldquo;I saw it completely deplete him,&rdquo; she says. In August 2009, five months after the Maddow interview, Dan went on Facebook and changed his profession. He was no longer a soldier. He was an activist.&nbsp;</p>
<p>But many of the qualities that worried Dan&rsquo;s old friends&mdash;his tendency toward melodrama, his equating himself with the movement&mdash;also made him brilliant at attracting attention to the cause. After the Army finally discharged him for violating &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell,&rdquo; he burned his notice during a talk at Harvard. At Netroots Nation, a yearly gathering of progressives, he arranged for organizers to give his West Point ring to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Dan pledged to hold Reid accountable in an open letter: &ldquo;My promise is not merely written on a piece of paper or words alone, but in the hearts of every lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender American fired from their jobs.&rdquo;</p>
<p>It was exactly those qualities, though, that inspired a new set of friends: radical activists who believed that the only way to persuade the country to repeal &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo; was with sit-ins, hunger strikes, and other direct action. They, along with Dan, took aim at the big gay-rights organizations, most of all the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest and the best funded. The bulk of HRC&rsquo;s work occurred behind the scenes, where leaders met with the president, White House officials, and lawmakers. In the spring of 2010, with Congress seriously considering repeal for the first time&mdash;the Senate was scheduled to hold hearings, and the National Defense Authorization Act was coming up for renewal&mdash;Dan accused the HRC of being too cautious and deferential. &ldquo;Within the gay community, so many leaders want acceptance from polite society,&rdquo; Dan told <em>Newsweek</em>. &ldquo;Gandhi did not need three-course dinners and a cocktail party to get his message out.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>On March 18, the HRC brought comedian Kathy Griffin, star of the reality television series <em>My Life on the D-List</em>, to speak with legislators about &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo; on Capitol Hill and headline a rally on Freedom Plaza. Dan asked HRC president Joe Solmonese if he could speak, but was told it was Griffin&rsquo;s rally. To the surprise of organizers, she welcomed Dan to the podium.</p>
<p>For the second time, Dan had dressed in his uniform at a political event, which is prohibited by military code. &ldquo;Our fight isn&rsquo;t actually just here at Freedom Plaza,&rdquo; he told the crowd. &ldquo;Our fight is at the White House. Will you join me?&rdquo; He called out Griffin and Solmonese, asking if they would march with him. Dan and a dozen participants strode up Pennsylvania Avenue chanting, &ldquo;Hey hey, ho ho, &lsquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rsquo; has got to go.&rdquo; Griffin and Solmonese stayed behind to talk with reporters. At the White House, Dan and James Pietrangelo, an Army captain who had been kicked out under &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell,&rdquo; handcuffed themselves to the northern gate. They spent the night in jail.</p>
<p>The protest, which Dan would reprise twice in the coming months, laid bare the fault lines in the gay-rights movement. The major gay blogs&mdash;AmericaBlog, Pam&rsquo;s House Blend, Queerty, Towleroad, Joe. My. God.&mdash;cheered him on. So did the grassroots activists, who blasted the HRC. The organization posted a note on its blog saying that Solmonese &ldquo;felt it was important to stay and engage those at the rally in ways they can continue building the pressure needed for repeal&rdquo; but that &ldquo;this [did] nothing to diminish the actions taken by Lt. Choi and others.&rdquo; Knights Out said that while it shared in the spirit of the protest, it did not condone Dan&rsquo;s actions.&nbsp;</p>
<p>In response, Dan quit Knights Out, further shrinking his circle to diehard activists. &ldquo;We were part of the gay civil-rights movement,&rdquo; says Pietrangelo. &ldquo;He did what the freedom marchers did: Gave a face to the suffering and showed how society was harming gay people.&rdquo; The West Pointers thought he had lost his sense of proportion. &ldquo;He was surrounded by those he considered friends&mdash;folks in the movement, people who can&rsquo;t self-evaluate,&rdquo; Haag-Fisk says.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The House of Representatives passed the Murphy Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act on May 27. The amendment provided for a repeal of &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo; after the Pentagon conducted a study and certified that lifting the ban on gays and lesbians would not harm the military. The deadline for the study was December 1. This wasn&rsquo;t good enough for Dan. Calling for Congress to repeal the policy immediately, he and Pietrangelo went on a hunger strike. After seven days, the pair gave in to supporters expressing concern for their health. Dan released a statement pledging to resume the strike &ldquo;using the proper safeguards to ensure [his] health&rdquo; but never did.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Over the summer and fall, Dan took on a relentless round of public appearances, but he was increasingly depressed. Some days, he was convinced that repeal would never pass. Others, he was convinced he would have to die for it to happen. By November, couch surfing had landed him at the Boston apartment of Laura Cannon, his old friend from West Point. She was shocked by how burned out he was.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Senate took up the National Defense Authorization Act, with a repeal of &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo; attached, on December 9. Dan was in Cannon&rsquo;s apartment, watching on TV. Harry Reid called for cloture, which would allow the bill to come to a vote, but it failed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Dan felt all his work had been for nothing. He got drunk and stoned while Cannon and her husband slept. When she saw him in the morning, Dan was still on the couch in front of the TV, speaking in fragments, muttering to himself, screaming obscenities, bursting into sobs. Now and then, he was mute, retreating to his bedroom with a bottle of scotch. He agreed to let her drive him to a VA hospital.</p>
<p>From there, Dan released a statement: &ldquo;My breakdown was a result of a cumulative array of stressors but there is no doubt that the composite betrayals felt on Thursday, by elected leaders and gay organizations as well as many who have exploited my name for their marketing purposes have added to the result.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Eight days later, on December 18, the Senate repealed &ldquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rdquo; and sent the bill to President Obama.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span class="dropcap">U</span><em>nited States v. Dan Choi</em>. He liked the sound of it.</p>
<p>At a little past 1 P.M. on November 15, one month before the repeal, Dan and 12 activists handcuffed themselves to the White House fence. They were charged with violating a minor U.S. Park Police regulation, &ldquo;failure to obey a lawful order.&rdquo; Civil-disobedience infractions are almost always tried in municipal court and typically dismissed, but the U.S. attorney general&rsquo;s office pursued the allegation at the federal level. The 13 were offered a plea. If they admitted guilt, they&rsquo;d face no consequences after four months without an arrest. Conviction, on the other hand, carried a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $5,000 fine. Everyone but Dan took the deal.</p>
<p>&nbsp;For two and a half years, the trial became his cause. He moved to the Newseum Residences because the building was around the corner from the courthouse.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Dan&rsquo;s self-narrative is under constant revision, which is a way of saying I&rsquo;m never sure whether to believe him, if the version of events he&rsquo;s presented is the final. When we first met, he told me he pursued the case because if the First Amendment doesn&rsquo;t apply at the foot of the White House, it doesn&rsquo;t apply anywhere. Another time, he told me that he wanted to lose so the proceedings could make it into case law; once a suit is appealed, it is woven into the legal record, becoming part of the constellation of rulings that guides lawyers and judges. Dan wanted to be among the stars.</p>
<p>The hundreds of pages of briefs and transcripts from the court proceedings contain the law&rsquo;s usual mix of minutiae and grandiloquence. There is the question of whether Dan was standing on the sidewalk or on the base of the White House fence. Much discussion was devoted to the cost of the handcuffs, how many there were, who bought them, what happened after Park Police took them away, and who had the keys. Lawyers quibbled over Dan&rsquo;s title&mdash;&ldquo;mister,&rdquo; since he was no longer in the military, or &ldquo;lieutenant&rdquo;? (The prosecutor was asked to address him by his rank.) In almost three hours of testimony on the second day of the trial, on August 30, 2011, Dan recounted his life story and declared that although he and the 12 others might have blocked the view of the White House, they had replaced it &ldquo;with a better view&mdash;a view of freedom because this is what equality looks like.&rdquo;</p>
<p>He invoked the ghosts of civil disobedience: &ldquo;Even if you have a quiver in your voice, you should speak up as loud as you can if you really believe that your cause is a righteous one. And so, I told everybody with the full righteousness of the winds behind your back of civil rights and human progress and Jesus and Gandhi and Alice Paul, and all of those people who fought for their dignity, you should yell as loud as possible.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Dan&rsquo;s supporters sat enraptured. &ldquo;It was as if, by speaking those magnificent, majestic truths,&rdquo; says Pietrangelo, one of the 12 arrested, &ldquo;he was vanquishing all the discrimination, bigotry, and pain that gay people had been suffering.&rdquo; On Twitter, 20,000 followers spurred him on. The trial didn&rsquo;t catch the attention of the mainstream media, but it was covered in the blogosphere. Firedoglake compiled an archive of documents, and Towleroad provided reports up to the minute.</p>
<p>Over the next 15 months, with motions being filed, Dan posted on his site and sent out his newsletter, <em>Frontlines</em>. He gave talks to make ends meet. But he was also skipping appointments with his psychiatrist and drinking heavily. He talked about taking a break, getting away. He told friends that a black van parked across from his building belonged to the Secret Service.</p>
<p>A month before the trial resumed, Dan fired his lawyers. He&rsquo;d been reading about the law for more than a year&mdash;to understand what was going on&mdash;and decided he knew enough to hold his own. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s no greater empowering moment than to stand before the judge and let them hear your own voice,&rdquo; he told the <em>Washington Blade</em>.</p>
<p>Dan made sure the turnout for the final phase, in March 2013, was big. He flew in his brother, sister, and cousin Sandra. Leaders from major gay-rights organizations were there. So was his old Army friend William Cannon. He didn&rsquo;t get to talk to Dan much. They shared a cigarette before marching with a group of about 50 people to the courthouse. Dan kept drifting away, mumbling incoherently. &ldquo;My friend Dan that I knew in Iraq and New York was gone,&rdquo; Cannon says. &ldquo;He had this cause he was so dedicated to.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Dan called four witnesses to testify, then showed a video of his <em>Rachel Maddow</em> interview. While it played, he wept. &ldquo;The defense rests!&rdquo; he announced, putting his head down on the table and throwing up his arm. The judge called for a recess; Dan lay on the floor and shouted obscenities. In the afternoon, the prosecution delivered a brief closing argument. Dan gave a 40-minute speech. Raving and disjointed, it was a broken mirror of the life story he had told six months earlier. When the judge found him guilty and fined him $100, Dan cried out, &ldquo;I refuse to pay it. Send me to jail!&rdquo; Instead, friends took him to the emergency room of Washington, D.C.&rsquo;s VA Medical Center, where he was admitted to the psychiatric ward.&nbsp;</p>
<div class="right-margin" style="width:411px;">
<img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/choifinalimage.jpg" alt="Dan Choi">
<p class="credit">Forrest MacCormack</p>
<p class="caption">Dan moved to Washington, D.C. to be near the courthouse where he was being tried.</p>
</div>
<p>The trial laid Dan bare. His passion. His penchant for inflamed rhetoric. His ability to attract followers. His solipsism. His vulnerability. On a few occasions, Dan has told me the trial was a plea for help. &ldquo;I didn&rsquo;t know what to do with myself after &lsquo;don&rsquo;t ask, don&rsquo;t tell&rsquo; was repealed,&rdquo; he says. Other times, he finds his nerve. &ldquo;I just want them to apologize to me in open court&mdash;that&rsquo;s all.&rdquo;</p>
<p>When he&rsquo;s being introspective, he wonders aloud about what&rsquo;s next. Maybe he&rsquo;ll become a teacher, he says. Or he could study vocal music. He took the LSAT a while back, so he could go to law school. Sometimes he says he wants to quit activism, but then he&rsquo;ll accept an invitation to speak at another rally.</p>
<p>A few things I am certain of. Washington can make people, even those who fight for human rights, lose their humanity. It gets covered up with talking points, strategy, branding. At the height of Dan&rsquo;s celebrity, few in the repeal movement pulled him aside and said, &ldquo;All this doesn&rsquo;t matter more than you do. Let&rsquo;s go home.&rdquo; Maybe that&rsquo;s because he&rsquo;d cut himself loose from the people who cared enough to tell him he was losing himself&mdash;people like Grace, Isaac, Sandra, William Cannon, Sarah Haag-Fisk, and Laura Cannon.&nbsp;</p>
<p>None of this is to say Dan would have listened. He had fallen in love with his own martyrdom. He had conflated activism with celebrity.</p>
<p>Dan&rsquo;s story runs in my head like an episode of <em>E! True Hollywood Story</em>. He starts out naïve and precocious. He rises. He succumbs to the pressure&mdash;all those interviews, rallies, fan letters, expectations. But instead of playing out on Bravo or in the pages of <em>Us Weekly</em>, it played out on MSNBC and in <em>The Advocate</em>. What I have to keep reminding myself is that by speaking when no one else would, Dan Choi did a good and courageous thing, and in part because of it, gays and lesbians can now serve openly in the military.</p>
<div style="display:none;">
<div style="width:auto;height:auto;overflow: auto;position:relative;">
<div id="choifootnote1" class="footnote"><iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Qa2J4BOyVGs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</div>
</div>
<div style="width:auto;height:auto;overflow: auto;position:relative;">
<div id="choifootnote2" class="footnote"><iframe src="http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fprospect.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdadttext.pdf&embedded=true" width="600" height="780" style="border: none;"></iframe>
</div>
</div>
<div style="width:auto;height:auto;overflow: auto;position:relative;margin-top:-20px;">
<div id="choifootnote3" class="footnote" style="width:1100px;"><iframe src='http://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline/latest/embed/index.html?source=0AstohHC2XBSrdEZaSGlRUVhndHVEeTdZSHNEVkt3dmc&font=DroidSerif-DroidSans&maptype=TERRAIN&lang=en&hash_bookmark=true&start_at_slide=1&height=600' width='100%' height='600' frameborder='0'></iframe>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>Sun, 09 Feb 2014 14:00:01 +0000220245 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaAin't Nothing But a Vagina Thinghttp://blog.prospect.org/article/aint-nothing-vagina-thing
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><style type="text/css">
div#in-article-ad {
display:none !important;
}
ol.conversation {
margin-bottom:20px !important;
}</style>
<div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><a href="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/beo52ntceaazpb8.jpg" class="lightbox"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/beo52ntceaazpb8.jpg?itok=p1T8pMB4" alt="" title="" /></a></div>
</div>
</div><p><span class="dropcap">T</span>he poster above may have some social conservatives in Texas clutching their pears, but it was feminists who were fighting over whether &ldquo;A Is For&rdquo;&rsquo;s ad campaign was offensive last week. Shortly after the group kicked off its campaign to raise money for four Texas abortion funds, a debate <a href="http://storify.com/DrJaneChi/night-of-a-thousand-vaginas">erupted on Twitter</a> accusing the organizers of a concert benefiting several Texas abortion funds for being cissexist and bioessentialist in their advertising campaign. For those who may not have been hip with the lingo, a cisgender person is someone whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth. Here&rsquo;s a sampling of the exchanges:</p>
<div style="margin-bottom:15px;">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Crucial cause, but can we not with the cissexism/bioessentialism, <a href="https://twitter.com/AIsForOrg">@AIsForOrg</a>? <a href="https://t.co/0B6rcihkjX">https://t.co/0B6rcihkjX</a></p>&mdash; Jane Doe, MD (@DrJaneChi) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrJaneChi/statuses/424947172233076737">January 19, 2014</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom:15px;">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/DrJaneChi">@DrJaneChi</a> Agreed. I love <a href="https://twitter.com/AIsForOrg">@AIsForOrg</a> and that we&#39;re focused on solidarity, but I&#39;d love to see us do it without alienating folks.</p>&mdash; Renee Bracey Sherman (@rbraceysherman) <a href="https://twitter.com/rbraceysherman/statuses/424948295543173120">January 19, 2014</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom:15px;">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/DrJaneChi">@DrJaneChi</a> I must disagree, respectfully. Vaginas are not reductionist, or an insult to anyone. They&#39;re a human body part. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23noshame&amp;src=hash">#noshame</a></p>&mdash; Martha Plimpton (@MarthaPlimpton) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarthaPlimpton/statuses/424958530458619905">January 19, 2014</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom:15px;">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>.<a href="https://twitter.com/DrJaneChi">@DrJaneChi</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MarthaPlimpton">@MarthaPlimpton</a> Sometimes it feels like my abortion experience is reduced to a fetus on one side &amp; my genitalia on the other...</p>&mdash; Renee Bracey Sherman (@rbraceysherman) <a href="https://twitter.com/rbraceysherman/statuses/424959039609794560">January 19, 2014</a></blockquote>
</div>
<p>By equating women with their vaginas, a number of contemporary, &ldquo;third wave&rdquo; feminists objected, the billing for the fundraiser excludes transgender women who were born without one. In addition, by focusing on the vagina as the crux of female identity, the campaign shuts transgender men out of the reproductive-rights movement. &ldquo;Transgender men have often been excluded from the reproductive-justice movement,&rdquo; writes Dr. Jane, a medical professional who deals with trans patients, in an e-mail. &ldquo;Cissexist &lsquo;radical feminists&rsquo; habitually use language like, &lsquo;You have a vagina! Vagina is female! Women have vaginas!&rsquo; to make transgender men feel unwelcome at best and dysphoric at worst.&rdquo; Even when it comes to talking about reproductive rights, &ldquo;many women find the constant insistence on the word &lsquo;vagina&rsquo; to miss the point of their experience,&rdquo; Dr. Jane says. It&rsquo;s &ldquo;bioessentialist,&rdquo; reducing women to their reproductive organs. &ldquo;[Vaginas] are a human body part. They&#39;re *not* a human, nor should they be used metonymically to mean humans,&rdquo; Twitter user @noveldevice chimed in.</p><p>Before you start rolling your eyes and muttering to yourself about runaway political correctness, let me make the point that the way we linguistically map out the world has important implications. Given that California&rsquo;s civil unions confer all the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, the legal wrangling over Proposition 8 came down to a debate over the term &ldquo;marriage&rdquo; itself. By denying same-sex couples the use of the moniker and requiring them to register for &ldquo;civil unions,&rdquo; the state of California was signaling that same-sex relationships were inferior; given the rhetoric surrounding Proposition 8 and all the money thrown at the court battles, you couldn&rsquo;t say it was a distinction without a difference. The point here is that, in California, the extended battle over Proposition 8 was all about who had the right to describe their union as a &ldquo;marriage.&rdquo; When it comes to identity, the words we use have the power to exclude or include certain groups of people, which is why we&rsquo;ve started using gender-neutral &ldquo;congressperson&rdquo; instead of &ldquo;congressman.&rdquo; Language matters. Naming reality matters.</p><p><span class="pullquote">Starting in the 1990s, &ldquo;third wave&rdquo; feminists began to challenge the idea that gender is a straightforward reflection of one&rsquo;s biological sex.</span> In <em>Gender Trouble</em>, philosopher Judith Butler argued that the link between the two was mediated by culture. While we perceive expressions of masculinity or femininity&mdash;the way we dress, speak, our sexual preferences&mdash;to be rooted in biology, they are in fact socially constructed. Through repetition and imitation we create the illusion that our gender is something deeply ingrained, but it&rsquo;s really a matter of habit. The idea isn&rsquo;t entirely new, and may date as far back as the 1966 publication of <em>The Social Construction of Reality</em> by sociologists Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann. But in the late 1980s and 1990s, the idea became vogue in academic circles, and started to affect the debates different groups of feminists were having.</p><p>This philosophical shift among &ldquo;third-wave&rdquo; feminists who viewed gender as socially constructed made the movement far more open to letting trans people into the fold. From the second-wave point of view&mdash;that of women who came of age fighting for reproductive rights and workplace equality in the 1960s and 1970s&mdash;including those who are not biologically women in the movement undercuts group solidarity. &ldquo;Feminists have fought&mdash;are are still fighting&mdash;for women to be able to use frank and correct words for their sexual parts. Now we&#39;re not supposed to use the word &lsquo;vagina?&rsquo;&rdquo; says noted feminist critic Katha Pollitt. &ldquo;There is no way you need an abortion, as some transmen do, if you don&#39;t have a vagina. Calling it &lsquo;internal genitals,&rsquo; as is apparently the preferred term, is just a ridiculous Victorian euphemism.&rdquo; It&rsquo;s not so much that shared plumbing guarantees a shared experience; it&rsquo;s that, the way society is structured, being a biological woman comes along with certain types of social oppression.</p><p>The infighting can get ugly. While many second-wave feminists have embraced transgendered people as part of the movement, some, like Julie Bindel, have gone as far as to accuse transgendered people of reinforcing a problematic gender binary system by opting for expensive surgeries to make their bodies align more with traditional notions of what it means to be &ldquo;male&rdquo; or &ldquo;female.&rdquo; The University of Melbourne&rsquo;s Sheila Jeffreys argues that transgenderedism is &ldquo;deeply problematic from a feminist perspective and should be seen as a violation of human rights.&rdquo;</p><p><span class="pullquote">For many, the kerfuffle over the &ldquo;A Is For&rdquo; advertising campaign shows just how useless academic debates about the nature of feminism are, and how divorced from the real-world problems women face.</span> Abortion is, after all, a medical procedure only people with vaginas can have. Mentioning the vagina, labia, or uterus in the context of abortion need not be &ldquo;bioessentalist&rdquo;&mdash;these are simply body parts that are involved. While you may not need a vagina to identify as a woman, you do need one to have an abortion.</p><p>In the same way that third-wave feminists have broadened the movement by being more open to trans experiences, the &ldquo;gender is a social construction&rdquo; contingent of the feminist movement needs to relax and cut other feminists a break when it is necessary to talk about the female body. While not everyone in the broad feminist movement may have a vagina, a core constituency&mdash;or rather, the vast majority&mdash;does, and talking about female anatomy is crucial in fighting for reproductive justice.</p></div><p>&nbsp;</p></div></div></div>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:26:53 +0000219641 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaObama Punts on Immigrationhttp://blog.prospect.org/article/obama-punts-immigration
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/obamawide_8.jpg?itok=9CfwNHPJ" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">AP Photo/Charles Dharapak</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<p>President Barack Obama gives his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2014.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class="dropcap">I</span>t is easy to overstate the importance of the State of the Union address <span style="line-height: 1.538em;">in defining Obama’s legacy</span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">—particularly in an election year, when presidential pressure can become a liability for those running in down-ticket races—but there are at least two areas where progressives say the president should have pushed harder last night: immigration and protections for gay, lesbian, and transgender people in the workplace. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would outlaw workplace discrimination against LGBT people, passed the Senate in November but has floundered in the House, where Speaker John Boehner, who has said publicly the legislation is unnecessary, said he will not bring it to a floor vote. Obama made no mention of ENDA last night, and has on a number of occasions downplayed the use of executive action to ensure rights for LGBT workers.</span></p>
<p>The president did, however, address immigration, weaving the topic into the broader theme of spurring economic growth. "If we are serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, and law enforcement and fix our broken immigration system," Obama said. "Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have acted. I know that members of both parties in the House want to do the same." But the issue got less airtime this year than last year, when post-election soul-searching from defeated Republicans made many hopeful the GOP would move forward on immigration as a way to placate Latino voters. </p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Some supporters of immigration reform say this was a calculated political move. "In the crazy world of Washington, D.C., the more [the president] says about immigration reform, the more Republicans are likely to resist it," says Frank Sharry, executive director of immigrant-rights group America's Voice. "In fact, you could say that he wants immigration reform legislation so badly, he downplayed it in the speech." </span></p>
<p>Republicans are expected to release a list of "principles" on immigration reform after a three-day retreat this week. While the plight of “Dreamers”—children of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children—seemed to elicit more sympathy from legislators in the Republican-controlled House during hearing this past August, some high-ranking members of the party have more recently indicated an openness to granting "legal status"—albeit not a "special path to citizenship"—for a broader number of the nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the country.</p>
<p>Many political prognosticators have declared immigration dead until after the midterms. <span class="pullquote">Immigration tends to be a national political issue, and it's telling that the last three major overhauls of the immigration system passed in October of a presidential election year. </span>Quite simply, immigration doesn't play well in midterm elections, particularly for Republicans who may fear managing a challenge from the right. "Republicans are worried about managing a challenge from the right," says Marshall Fitz of the left-leaning Center for American Progress. "They're not worried about how it plays in the general election because it plays well there."</p>
<p>But pro-immigrant advocacy groups have called on the president to use executive authority to halt deportations until Congress acts. Currently, the administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) has allowed 455,000 children of undocumented immigrants—the “Dreamers”—to register for a two year waiver that lets them work and live in the country. Advocates like Sharry believe the administration has the power to extend this relief more broadly until Congress acts. "The president's call for reform would have been even stronger had he said he would use his pen and phone to stop deporting immigrants who are on the cusp of legalizing their status under pending legislation," he said.</p>
<p>Alongside health care and the economy, immigration is one key way President Obama can cement his legacy. While the fate of the Affordable Care Act now rests in the hands of governors across the country, that of the economy and our immigration system are intertwined. "The bottom line is that he definitely made a strong case for Congress to act on immigration—putting country first in economic terms," says Clarissa Martinez of the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino-rights group. "As with the minimum wage, immigration has an economic dimension as well as the incredible social dimension of families being disrupted and torn apart by deportations." From a political standpoint, passing immigration reform could cement the Democratic Party's standing with Latino voters, who were instrumental in handing Obama the presidency in 2008 and 2012. It is for this same reason that some are more hopeful Republicans will act—if not before the midterms, then after: The prospect of winning national elections for Republicans depends on peeling away some of Latinos' growing support for Democratic candidates, and no other issue galvanized this constituency like immigration.</p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:35:53 +0000219625 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaFree at Last: A Gay Republican Leaves the Foldhttp://blog.prospect.org/article/free-last-gay-republican-leaves-fold
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/goproud114.jpg?itok=x2cfIuEo" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Photo courtesy of Jimmy LaSalvia</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class="dropcap">J</span>immy LaSalvia has spent part of his political life explaining himself to people like me: gay liberals who don't understand why he's a Republican. LaSalvia, who remembers putting up signs for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in junior high, left his native Kentucky in 2006 to join the staff of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay conservative group. Dismayed at what he saw as the Log Cabin's leftward drift—the group declined to endorse George W. Bush in 2004, and barely came out for John McCain—and its focus on social instead of economic issues, he co-founded GOProud in 2009. The organization, which co-sponsored the 2010 Conservative Political Action Convention before conference organizers decided to exclude the group in subsequent years, made headlines for outing Rick Perry pollster Tony Fabrizio after the campaign released a homophobic ad and hosting conservative firebrand Ann Coulter at its annual fundraiser. It has affiliates in several states and bills itself as the gay Tea Party group.</p>
<p>LaSalvia made a name for himself as a political strategist and commentator in Washington, D.C. He's "the gay conservative" on television, where he's typically asked to provide commentary about his party's stance—and evolution, or lack thereof—on gay-rights issues. His goal, he says, was to reform the GOP from within: "For the better part of 10 years, I've worked to create an atmosphere in the Republican Party where gay conservatives can live openly, work, and be a part of the movement."</p>
<p>But on Monday, LaSalvia gave up on this Sisyphean task. In a <a href="http://jimmylasalvia.com/2014/01/13/no-party/">blog post on his personal website</a>, he announced he was changing his registration to "independent," saying he "just can’t bring [himself] to carry the Republican label any longer."</p>
<p>"I feel like a parent who has to practice tough love," he told the <em>Prospect </em>in an hour-long interview earlier this week. "When your child is a drug addict and rehab doesn't work and they just keep on using, at some point you have to put your foot down, lock the door, and cut them off." </p>
<p><strong style="line-height: 1.538em;">What prompted you to leave the Republican Party?</strong></p>
<p>I kept thinking, “I have conservative principles and values, but it doesn't appear that the Republican Party shares my values and principles.” I thought, “Maybe there's hope.” But I've come to the conclusion that there's not hope. I'm still a conservative. I hope we have a more conservative government to come in and implement free-market policies to help get the country going again. But in order to do that you have to win elections. Republicans aren't going to win election as long as voters think they're out of touch and can't relate to real life in America today. I don't know how you change that. You can change the messaging but at end of day, you can’t make somebody be in touch with real life. I just came to conclusion there wasn't any hope.</p>
<p><strong style="line-height: 1.538em;">Is your change of heart specifically in response to Republicans' record on gay rights?</strong></p>
<p>I am a limited-government conservative and they're big-government people. I am also opposed to bigotry of any kind, which they tolerate. Anti-gay, anti-Muslim bigotry—whoever it is—they tolerate it. I’m not saying all or a majority of Republicans are extremist bigots, but they put up with it. The best the leadership can do is say we need to treat everyone with dignity and respect, but they can't stand up and denounce bigotry outright. Bigotry stains everyone unless it’s denounced and denounced forcibly. No one in the GOP today has the guts to do that.</p>
<p><strong>Is this you admitting failure? Giving up?</strong></p>
<p>I've worked to make it so that straight conservatives can publicly support gay Americans and go as far as supporting gay marriage. I feel we accomplished that. Now, Republicans can feel free to stand up and say they support same-sex marriage. But I've noticed that the forces of intolerance in the party are stronger than ever. Frankly, I think that the reason is because the Republican Party is the last place they exist. The rest of America has moved on and the only ones left are activist Republicans. There are not that many of them, but they swing a disproportionate amount of weight because they're so concentrated in this party. As more and more people felt comfortable embracing gay Americans and talking about issues affect gay people, I thought anti-gay bigotry in the GOP would melt away and dissipate. It hasn’t.</p>
<p><strong>Was there one final, last straw?</strong></p>
<p>[Chuckles] No, I'll tell you—I left GOProud six months ago. I made the decision after the election that it was time for me to start doing other things. I stayed through last spring because there was the CPAC event and the Supreme Court cases. Since then, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this new majority of Americans who aren't happy with either party. I knew that I wanted to somehow be a part of this group; I just wasn't sure when I would change my registration. But lately, there’ve been a lot of things—Ken Cuccinelli's candidacy in Virginia, a Republican from Michigan posting horrible anti-Muslim stuff on Facebook. Nobody said a word. I reached out to people at the Republican National Committee to draw attention to it and tell them, “Once again, you should speak out against this.” It was dead silence from there. So it was like, “Okay, that’s it.” </p>
<p><strong>Among party elites—the leadership—is there a realization that a change is necessary?</strong></p>
<p>There is an intellectual realization among many in leadership that the Republican Party has got to change, but has a lack of testicular fortitude to do it. If you really want to make changes that are necessary, not everybody who is a Republican now is going to stay one. To be honest with you, some people are going to say, “Screw you, I’m gone.” You have to be willing to suffer the consequences in order to reap the big gains going forward.</p>
<p>It's kind of like [the Republican National Committee’s] autopsy report after the 2012 election and supposed changes. It's like taking a terminally ill cancer patient to get a makeover. It really makes her feel good and she looks great, but at the end of the day the cancer still kills her unless you cut it out. Republicans are not willing to cut the cancer out in order for healthy party to grow again.</p>
<p>The thing is, the people who are the cancer are not happy, either. They don't think Republicans are doing enough for them. The truth is, the forces of intolerance are never going to be happy. I can’t figure out why leadership hasn’t cut them loose long time ago. They are turning off multitudes of voters and only bringing in a handful of voters with them. It's the most crazy situation I've ever seen. It’s a tiny sliver of the voting population that they count on, and it’s like a drug addict who can’t give up on crack even though they know it’s not good for them.</p>
<p><strong>How common are doubts and concerns like yours among Republicans?</strong></p>
<p>I don't think anybody who's a Republican right now hasn't had a conversation with themselves about whether they can take it anymore—gay, straight, whatever. Not a single person is satisfied right now. Of course as a gay person, it’s been a rough ride, but I always had hope there would be big change with a national leader who could lead the way—a president, frankly. That could change things, but the truth is that unless a miracle happens, I’m not convinced that Republicans can elect another president because the cultural issues are so severe in the party right now.</p>
<p><strong>What has the reaction to your announcement been?</strong></p>
<p>In the last day and a half since I posted publicly about changing my registration, I have been bursting with enthusiasm based on the feedback that I've gotten from people all over the country—Independents and even people who are still Republicans saying, “I know exactly how you feel.” I feel as though I've hit a nerve and that so many can relate to what I've gone through. </p>
<p>I was beaten down for the last few years—all you have to do is Google to see how many times I’ve been kicked in the teeth—but this move has energized me like nothing I’ve ever done in politics. This is better because it’s real hope for me. I see enthusiasm from other people who are disillusioned with both political parties but passionate about their country. They want to make it better. I don't know what form my activism is going to take, but I know that it will happen with greater enthusiasm and energy.</p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:31:27 +0000219567 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaI'll Be Gay for Christmashttp://blog.prospect.org/article/ill-be-gay-christmas
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/5250125069_da5f27f658_o.jpg?itok=ky75iDgd" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Flickr/MTSOfan</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class="dropcap">I </span>haven’t been home for Christmas in ten years. The excuse I always gave was that the holidays stress me out, which isn’t untrue. I can’t stand to watch once the local news station starts its seasonal coverage. You know the hard-hitting journalism I’m talking about: brave reporters staked out at Wal-Mart before it opens at 6 a.m. on Black Friday; with a frumpy Jane Doe browsing Amazon.com on Cyber Monday; and, around now, live on the scene at the airport giving updates about the bad weather, long lines, and flight delays. Just thinking about standing in a security line for two hours makes me want to punch Santa.</p>
<p>There’s buying and wrapping gifts, writing and sending cards. If your family is anything like mine, <span class="pullquote">Christmas is also when everyone comes together, gets drunk, and airs the grievances they’ve been holding onto all year.</span> After that come the teary expressions of love and forgiveness. I’m one of five kids, my dad is one of eight, and my mom is one of four. All that pathos can be overwhelming.</p>
<p>But that’s not the real reason I stayed put on December 25. Like many gay kids who grew up in a small town—in my case, on the Arizona-Mexico border—I was so desperate to get out I thought it would never happen. When it finally did and I left for college “back East,” I felt I had escaped. When I visited—in summer or spring—I’d look out the window in relief as the plane back to my new life took off. Somehow—implausibly—I’d broken free again.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span class="dropcap">I</span> stopped going home for the holidays after I graduated from college and took my first job in New York City as a paralegal. It was the first time I was financially independent. At the time, my parents were so cool with me being gay that we weren’t allowed to talk about it. “It’s just a small part of who you are—it doesn’t matter,” one or the other would say. “Why do you have to make such a big deal about it?” Silence can masquerade as acceptance, but there is a big difference between a quiet room and one in which it’s forbidden to speak. My parents would only refer to my boyfriend, who I’d met in college and had been dating for two years, as “your friend.”</p>
<p>Like a mischievous child peeling back the wrapping paper on Christmas Eve, the prohibition made me not just want to talk about being gay; I wanted to lead the San Francisco Pride Parade through their living room. I made sure to antagonize mom and dad as much as possible, sliding in references to the boyfriend or drag queens wherever possible, which they would dutifully ignore.</p>
<p>Instead of going home on Christmas, I went to a gay bar, the first place I found other people like me. On the 25th, the hotspots in Washington, D.C. and New York have an aura I usually associate with smaller-town establishments. They’re more sparsely populated, the patrons friendlier, the age range wider. As more and more of us feel comfortable coming out, the increasing number of gay bars in major cities means more self-sorting. In D.C., for instance, young professionals go to Number Nine while thirty-somethings who are too old to wear Abercrombie &amp; Fitch go to Nellie's. But on Christmas, it seems gay bars go through a time warp. Whether it’s in New York or D.C. and whichever bar it is, each feels like the only one in town. While the night before they may have played Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You” to the wild screams of the dancing queens, on the actual holiday gay bars don’t play Christmas music. Instead, they play the anthems of gay and female empowerment—“Born this Way,” “Firework,” “Defying Gravity,” “Strong Enough.” There is an air of loneliness about them I always found comforting on Christmas. Comforting because I recognize it: Here are other people who fled to the cities and, like exiles trapped together in a foreign land, feel they can’t return. That’s of course why they also play “We Are Family.” For a long time, I indeed felt that way.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span class="dropcap">T</span>he last time my parents called my boyfriend “your friend,” the family was on a five-day cruise to Cabo San Lucas. I had just decided to quit my Ph.D. program and try to become a writer—a risk I’d been too afraid to take at 22 but at 26 felt confident enough to try. I’d be moving in with my boyfriend, who would support me financially while I took an internship at <em>The Nation</em>.</p>
<p>The Carnival cruise is designed to be fun—at least for people who like zoos. There’s an endless parade of attractions: themed bars (I liked the Cole Porter Club), margaritas on the Lido Deck, a swimming pool packed with children like sardines. My younger brother and his wife had gotten their own suite while the rest of us kids were crammed together in a room not much larger than my studio apartment. It only took me two days to crack.</p>
<p>At dinner on the second night—cruises have seatings, and ours was at 8 o’clock—I was already drunk. When my mother once again referred to my boyfriend as “your friend,” I lost it. “You don’t fuck your friends, mom,” I exclaimed. “No one calls dad your friend.” I told them that whether or not they accepted my sexuality, my life was going to move forward. “You have the choice of being a part of it or not,” I said. The guests in the surrounding tables sat in stunned silence as I stormed off. I spent the rest of the trip trashed, and of course managed to find every other gay guy on that ship.</p>
<p>A parent’s love for their child is transformative in a way other types of love—filial, fraternal—simply are not. It changes you. Faced with the choice between me and deeply ingrained beliefs about God, family, and love they had grown up with, my parents chose me. So do most. Demographers ponder the radical shift in public opinion on gay marriage over the last ten years—in 1996, only 27 percent of Americans supported it; now, a majority do. But it’s no mystery. Gays and lesbians changed America one cruise-ship confrontation at a time. Those who prefer the law to justice would call it unprincipled, but I’d rather live in a world based on empathy than doctrine.</p>
<p>When I was last home in May, it struck me how much my hometown had changed. It had gotten its first movie theater. There was now an IHOP and a Home Depot. The place seemed foreign. I, too, had changed. My boyfriend had become my husband, and my fanciful dream of becoming a writer had come true—I even get paid for spouting off, which never ceases to amaze me. My parents looked older, and their kids have started having kids. My nephew speaks now—in both English and Spanish—and my brother and his wife just had another baby. My youngest siblings, who were 6 and 8 when I left, are in college. My other brother is starting his own business. My dad tells me he thinks Michael, my husband, is “a wonderful guy.” My mom now mentions my “husband” more than I do, and tells him over and over how much she loves him (better him than me). That was the first time I felt I couldn’t go back. The place I had fled simply wasn’t there anymore.</p>
<p>As I write this—I had to get up early to get some quiet—the dogs are running around the house and people have started to get up. Someone just turned on the TV, and it’s blaring. I decided to come home for Christmas this year, and think I will from now on. This of course means I’ll be abandoning my annual tradition of going to the gay bar. As acceptance for gays and lesbians increases and more of us get married, settle down, and have kids, there will be fewer of us to listen to “We Are Family” together on Christmas. That’s sad in one way, but better in more.</p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 24 Dec 2013 19:56:24 +0000219459 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaThe Immigration-Reform Movement Grows Wearyhttp://blog.prospect.org/article/immigration-reform-movement-grows-weary
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/tentwide.jpg?itok=YOSyo8lJ" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">The American Prospect/Gabriel Arana</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<p>Tents set up by supporters of immigration reform on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-29f2f197-8068-98a3-4dd8-9e3a51c98e6a"><span class="dropcap">O</span>n March 21 2012, José Gutiérrez—41-years-old and undocumented—was deported to Mexico. A successful film engineer in Los Angeles with two young children—a two-year-old son and a four-month-old daughter who was in the hospital at the time—Gutiérrez had lived in the United States since childhood. Nine days later,</span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"> he risked crossing the border illegally at the San Luis Port of Entry in Arizona to reunite with his family. The next his wife Shena, a United States citizen, heard of him, he was in a coma.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-29f2f197-8068-98a3-4dd8-9e3a51c98e6a">"He was beaten so badly his skull had to be removed in five parts," Shena told a group of about a dozen supporters of immigration reform on the National Mall earlier this week. "How do you explain to your children, 'This happened to your Dad because he's undocumented?'" Behind her, organizers from the Southern Border Communities Coalition, which sponsored the event, had laid out rows of tables covered in white cloth and adorned with banners decrying the militarization of the border—"Keep Families Together," "Bridges Not Border Walls." A few hundred yards away, several large tents contained the "Fast for Families," where a core group of four activists has been abstaining from food since Tuesday to protest Congress's inaction on immigration reform. With the wind blowing ripples across the Capitol reflecting pool, the air was cold, the mood somber. After the event, a handful of journalists, a small corps that still managed to outnumber the activists, mulled about the dry grass, but the scene was mostly empty.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-29f2f197-8068-98a3-4dd8-9e3a51c98e6a">Stories like José's—a longtime resident with a stable job, a citizen wife, and two young children—highlight the human impact of our dysfunctional immigration system, which forces undocumented immigrants like José to choose between breaking the law and staying with their family, pursuing their livelihood. It makes clear the pressing need for reform. But as the poor attendance at the rally organized by Southern Border Communities Coalition shows, it's hard to draw a crowd when speaking out seems to make little difference. Over the past week, a coalition of </span><a href="http://fast4families.org/sponsors/">dozens of organizations supporting immigration reform</a> have sponsored events across the country intended to push Congress to act on immigration; the Senate <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-2013-senate-passes-93530.html">passed</a> an omnibus immigration bill in July, but the Republican-controlled House has failed to act. The push shares little of the momentum or scale of the <a href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/immigration-protests-across-us/?_r=0">massive demonstrations for immigrant rights in 2006 and 2007</a>, or even those earlier this year, when legislation was being actively debated in Congress.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-29f2f197-8068-98a3-4dd8-9e3a51c98e6a">The Fast for Families—whose sponsors include America's Voice, an advocacy organization dedicated to immigration reform; the National Council of La Raza, the largest national Hispanic civil-rights and advocacy organization; the Service Employees International Union; and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference—is the cornerstone of the latest effort to keep pressure on legislators. Civil-rights leader Jesse Jackson and feminist Gloria Steinem, in town to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, stopped by the activists’ outpost on the corner of 3rd Street and Jefferson Drive on Tuesday. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer have also visited the tents, and on the Fast for Families website, more than 3,000 people have pledged to join them in solidarity.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-29f2f197-8068-98a3-4dd8-9e3a51c98e6a">But the legislative effort has hit the same Republican roadblock that shut down the government for two weeks in October and has kept Congress from passing a host of important bills, from immigration reform to the farm bill and climate-change legislation.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-29f2f197-8068-98a3-4dd8-9e3a51c98e6a">The comprehensive immigration-reform bill passed by the Senate addressed a wide variety of problems with the system; it set out a path for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the country to earn citizenship, contained a massive overhaul of the visa system, and beefed up enforcement. But in a strategy that critics say shows Republicans are not serious about reform, the GOP-controlled House has </span><a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/302963-on-immigration-house-gop-leaning-toward-piecemeal-approach">adopted a piecemeal approach</a>, drafting smaller bills that deal with issues like enforcement or high-skilled workers separately. Supporters of immigration reform hoped the omnibus Senate bill could be reconciled with a handful of stand-alone bills from the House in a <a href="http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26*2D4Q%3C%5B3%0A">conference committee</a>. But last week, House Speaker John Boehner dashed the prospects of that happening. “We have no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill,” Boehner <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/john-boehner-immigration-99797.html">told</a> reporters. Even Republican Marco Rubio, a member of the Senate's "Gang of Eight" that sponsored the immigration-reform legislation, has <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/28/marco-rubio-immigration_n_4169925.html">backed away</a> from his own legislation.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-29f2f197-8068-98a3-4dd8-9e3a51c98e6a">Congress has been debating immigration reform since President George W. Bush took office more than ten years ago. As Muzaffar Chishti, director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, pointed out in September, the policy debates have all been settled. Business groups and organized labor, which helped sink the 2007 immigration-reform bill because of its guest-worker program, have reached the necessary compromises. The support for reform from business, faith, and immigrant-rights groups is bipartisan and overwhelming. "It's now about political will," Chishti said.</span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-29f2f197-8068-98a3-4dd8-9e3a51c98e6a">It's no surprise the reform movement is wearing thin; it's hard to keep momentum going after nearly a decade without results. This is the Catch-22 supporters of immigration reform currently find themselves in: Legislators' failure to act discourages citizens from speaking out, yet citizens must speak out in order for Congress to act.</span></p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:21:16 +0000219289 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaThe Gay Awakeninghttp://blog.prospect.org/article/gay-awakening
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/methodwide.jpg?itok=7A7er2Z-" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">AP Photo/Jacqueline Larma</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<p>Supporters of same-sex marriage outside Camp Innnabah, the Methodist retreat center where Rev. Frank Schaeffer is facing trial for officiating his son's same-sex wedding.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class="dropcap">A</span>ny other day, Reverend Frank Schaeffer might look out onto the 179 acres of woods at Camp Innabah—a Christian retreat center 40 miles outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—and stop to ponder God's design in the natural beauty. But today, his mind is on another matter: his trial.</p>
<p>"There probably won't be an acquittal," says Schaeffer, who faces losing his credentials to preach in the United Methodist Church, the country's largest mainline protestant denomination. "I just hope the penalty will be restorative rather than punitive."</p>
<p>The 51-year-old pastor's crime? Officiating his son's same-sex wedding in 2007. Schaeffer informed the church leadership that he would be performing the ceremony at the time, but disciplinary proceedings were not started against him until last April, when a member of his congregation reported him. Under the church's Book of Discipline, "homosexual practice" is considered "incompatible with Christian teaching." "I knew if I spoke out, it would be very divisive," Schaeffer says. "But I feel like I was outed to the world and couldn't go back."</p>
<p>Schaeffer's trial, which over the weekend prompted 30 other Methodist ministers in Pennsylvania to express solidarity by sanctifying a same-sex union, has highlighted the growing divide among the faithful over homosexuality. It's a rift that extends across denominations. Except for the <span style="line-height: 1.538em;">the United Church of Christ, which began recognizing same-sex unions in 2005; the</span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"> </span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which followed suit in 2009; and</span><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"> the Episcopal Church,* the leadership of the country's major Christian denominations has presented a solid front against the spread of same-sex marriage across the country. Further down the totem pole, churches are moving on without their leadership. According to a forthcoming report from the National Congregations Study at Duke University, the number of congregations allowing openly gay and lesbian members has increased from 38 to 48 percent since 2006. Twenty-seven percent of churches gave gay and lesbian congregants leadership roles in the same timeframe—an 8 percent jump.</span></p>
<p>"Things don't change that much in religion—there's a lot of stability," says Mark Chaves, a sociologist at Duke and one of the researchers behind the study. "This is one of the biggest jumps on a specific subject we've seen since we first started collecting data in 1998." Indeed, while public support for same-sex marriage shot up in the last ten years—in 2003, only 33 percent of the public supported gay unions; today, 55 percent do—polls have generally shown attitudes among religious folk trending upward more languorously. But those who study religious opinion say the trend line among the faithful began to shoot up between 2008 and 2009. "The sea change has hit among religious organizations," says Robert Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), a think tank in Washington, D.C. "Overall, what we're seeing are the changes in American culture broadly reflected in attitudes of religious Americans as well." The rise is driven by young people, who tend to favor same-sex marriage, and the increasing number of Americans—both religious and not—who personally know someone who is gay, which studies show is the best predictor of attitudes on gay unions.</p>
<p>While the numbers from the National Congregations Study offer a bottom-up view of how things are changing in the pews, data from the PRRI offers more of a drill-down into the shift within different denominations. The change in attitude among the faithful is not evenly distributed across denominations. While a majority of Catholics and mainline Protestants now support same-sex marriage, only 19 percent of white evangelicals and 37 percent of minority Protestants do. But, reflecting the findings of the National Congregations Study, in each group there has been an upturn. Since 2006, support for same-sex marriage increased 17 percentage points among Catholics, 14 among mainline Protestants, 6 among white evangelicals, and 10 among minority Protestants.</p>
<p>Like many religious institutions, the divide in the Methodist Church falls along geographic lines. While mainline Protestants tend to be supporting of gay rights, the Methodist Church is more heavily concentrated in the South than the Lutheran or Episcopal churches. "Methodists in the South are highly influenced by evangelicalism, which is why you see these battles being more pitched in the United Methodist Church," Jones says. For groups like the Episcopal Church, the split is international. After the church ordained openly gay pastor Gene Robinson as a bishop in 2007, more than a dozen jurisdictions peeled off to form the Anglican Church in North America, which was quickly followed by the Anglican churches of Nigeria and Uganda. </p>
<p>The largest upswing in support for same-sex marriage has been among black protestants, which jumped from just 19 percent in 2006 to 43 percent today—a 24-point spread. Jones credits religious and non-religious leaders in the black community for the shift. "One of the things that certainly has played a role is the election of Obama and his own public shift in his stance on the issue, followed very quickly by the NAACP's shift," Jones says. Opposition to same-sex marriage in the black church has been a major source of contention in the public sphere, with groups like the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex unions, trying to pit the LGBT and black communities against each other. If the polling is any indication, the strategy hasn't worked.</p>
<p>At least one religious group has remained steadfast in its position on same-sex marriage. Non-Christian religiously affiliated Americans, of which Jews make up a large percentage, support gay unions at a rate of over 70 percent, and have for the last decade.</p>
<p>With the rift in the pews growing, the big question for religious institutions is whether the issue will lead to denominational splits as it did with slavery, which cleaved the Baptist Church and many other protestant denominations in two. A similar breakup occurred in the early 20th century over the doctrinal issue of Biblical inerrancy—the idea that the Bible contains the perfectly preserved word of God. Jones says that whether churches see similar schisms over same-sex marriage depends on how persistent the divide is. Given how quickly attitudes are changing, he thinks such a largescale schism is unlikely. "When you have big splits, the issue has to sit around for a while," he says. "But the issue is moving too quickly to produce settled coalitions that are facing off."</p>
<p>The Methodists don't appear poised for a similar schism—at least not yet. But as the number of Methodists who support gay rights creeps upward, it is bound to create friction. For Schaeffer, whose trial is scheduled to conclude tomorrow, the issue is not an abstract one. "Really, this isn't an issue of theology or doctrine," Shaeffer says. "This is about people. It's about the life of my child."</p>
<p><strong>CORRECTION</strong>: An earlier version of this article stated that the only mainline Protestant denomination performing same-sex marriages was the Episcopal Church. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America also voted to recognize same-sex unions in 2009.</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:26:31 +0000219218 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel Arana"Religious Liberty": The Next Big Front in the Culture Warshttp://blog.prospect.org/article/religious-liberty-next-big-front-culture-wars
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/endawide.jpg?itok=Wkko7NhL" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<p>Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin and the chamber's first openly gay member, is surrounded by fellow Democrats just before a historic vote on legislation outlawing workplace discrimination against gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class="dropcap">I</span>n a historic vote yesterday, the Senate passed the <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s815rs/pdf/BILLS-113s815rs.pdf">Employment Non-Discrimination Act</a> (ENDA), which outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. First introduced in 1994, when the legislation failed to pass the chamber by a single vote, ENDA succeeded in securing enough support from Republicans to pass after adopting an amendment by Rob Portman. The Ohio senator’s amendment strengthens the bill’s existing protections for religious and religiously affiliated organizations, specifying that government entities cannot retaliate against groups exempted from the law. </p>
<p>Protections for religious organizations have become a standard part of gay-rights legislation; they are typically included in anti-discrimination legislation and bills recognizing same-sex marriage. But for groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, those contained in ENDA are not enough. "The bill’s religious freedom protection," the conference <a href="http://www.catholicismusa.com/bishops-to-senators-gender-identity-is-not-a-social-construct-or-a-psychosocial-reality/">wrote in a letter</a> distributed to each member of the Senate, "covers only a subset of religious employers, and as a result of recent litigation, is uncertain in scope." Conservative religious organizations and thinkers are sounding the alarm, saying the legislation poses a dire threat to religious liberty. Drawing on exemptions contained in the <a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm">Civil Rights Act of 1964</a>, the bill's religious-liberty provision ensures that the law does not apply to institutions like churches or to religiously affiliated universities or nonprofits. Another amendment offered by Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania would have expanded the universe of exempted groups to include for-profit businesses. It failed by a vote of 43 to 55. </p>
<p>While ENDA is unlikely to make it past the Republican-controlled House, its passage symbolizes how far and how precipitously gay rights have advanced in the last 17 years. Twenty-one states and 140 municipalities passed their own anti-discrimination laws protecting gays, lesbians, and transgender people. On Tuesday, the Illinois legislature <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/illinois-lawmakers-vote-to-allow-same-sex-marriage-governor-pledges-to-sign-bill/2013/11/05/4d148ac8-467a-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html">passed a marriage-equality bill</a> the governor has promised to sign, bringing the tally of states recognizing same-sex marriage to 15.</p>
<p>When it comes to this issue, conservatives are resigned to defeat. <span class="pullquote">The response from major religious organizations and thinkers? Shifting focus from stopping the tide of social change to exempting themselves from it. </span></p>
<p>"Religious liberty" is the next big front in the culture wars.</p>
<p>"A consensus is emerging on the right that the most important goal at this stage is ... to secure as much liberty as possible for dissenting religious and social conservatives while there is still time," <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/does-faith-hate/">writes</a> Rod Dreher in the September/October cover story of <em>The American Conservative</em> magazine, "Does Faith = Hate?" While some conservative intellectuals like Princeton's Robert George—considered by some the most influential Christian thinker in America—see the battle between gay rights and religious liberty as a zero-sum game, activists like Maggie Gallagher, founder and former president of the National Organization for Marriage, say traditionalists must fight to be tolerated in the new era of gay rights. </p>
<p>The courts have been one vehicle for this growing movement. Under the banner of the First Amendment, conservative legal groups have filed lawsuits arguing that same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws violate their religious liberty. In an upset, the New Mexico Supreme Court recently <a href="http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2013/08/new-mexico-supreme-court-rules-photographer-cannot.html">ruled</a> that a Christian photographer who refused to shoot a same-sex wedding was not exempt from the state's Human Rights Act, which covers sexual orientation. Health care is another arena in which conservatives have sounded the religious-liberty alarm. Three major lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate on religious grounds are <a href="http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/11/07/another-affordable-care-act-contraception-lawsuit-filed-in-michigan/">currently climbing through the justice system</a>.</p>
<p>Grafting religious protections onto existing legislation is another way conservatives have tried to gain back ground. Richard Garnett at the University of Notre Dame Law School sees room for compromise. He and a group of several legal scholars, which includes both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, have <a href="http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/08/memosletters-on-religious-liberty-and-samesex-marriage.html">advised state legislatures in ten states</a>—including New York, New Jersey, Maine, and Maryland—in crafting religious exemptions for bills enacting same-sex marriage and nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people. "It makes sense moving forward in a relatively peaceful way to include exemptions on the assumption that they're not going to be used very often," Garnett says. "Our group supports a 'live and let live' approach."</p>
<p>William Eskridge, a professor of law at Yale University, notes that "most gay-rights leaders and progressives favor religious exemptions for religious institutions." While the horror scenario of a priest or pastor being forced to perform a same-sex marriage or a church being forced to hire a gay, lesbian, or transgender employee springs up occasionally in the public debate, Eskridge says this is a canard. "No one I know of is in favor of having state pressure on religious institutions to perform them they do not recognize as part of their tradition," he says. </p>
<p><span class="pullquote">The real debate, Eskridge and Garnett say, is whether and to what degree religiously affiliated institutions like schools or churches and non-religiously affiliated, for-profit companies should be exempt from non-discrimination legislation.</span> Should religiously affiliated adoption agencies that receive government funding be allowed to turn away same-sex couples? Should bakers, photographers, and musicians be able to refuse to provide services at a same-sex wedding?</p>
<p>In current practice, the answer to these questions depends on the scope of both the protections extended to gays, lesbians, and transgendered people as well as the breadth of the religious exemptions included. Currently, a patchwork of 160 state and municipal anti-discrimination laws provide varying degrees of coverage. Some states like Arizona and Montana prohibit discrimination only in employment, and only for state employees. Others like New York and Massachusetts cover all employment as well as "public accommodations" like housing or medical facilities. New Mexico's Human Rights Act has been interpreted as prohibiting for-profit companies from refusing services to gay couples celebrating a marriage. </p>
<p>The deeper question in the debate over religious liberty raises is whether sexual orientation and gender identity should be classified and protected in the same way race is. No one today makes the argument that a for-profit employer should be able to deny services to blacks or Asians; the public consensus has become that racial discrimination deserves no place in society. It is religious conservatives' great fear that moral opposition to homosexuality and same-sex unions will assume the same status. </p>
<p>That is the goal of some gay-rights supporters who think objections to homosexuality and same-sex unions are ultimately based on irrational hatred for gays and lesbians. Wayne Besen, a gay-rights advocate and founder of <a href="http://www.truthwinsout.org/">Truth Wins Out</a>, says exemptions for religious institutions are “an attempt to rationalize discrimination.” “They’re saying they want freedom of religion but what they’re saying freedom of religion means freedom from those who aren’t religious,” he says. “They’re arguing for a parallel set of laws.” Besen says he fears the religious-liberty protections create room for the very sort of discrimination laws like ENDA are trying to prohibit. “You can invoke religion anytime and that’s a big mistake,” he says. “This exception creates another form of discrimination.”</p>
<p>Activists like Gallagher have argued forcefully that sexual orientation is not akin to race—and should not be treated as such under the law. “Skin color does not give rise to a morality,” Gallagher <a href="http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&amp;context=njlsp">wrote</a> in a 2010 paper in Northwestern University’s law journal. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/04/the-7-worst-arguments-in-the-heritage-foundatio/196738">released a report</a> in advance of the ENDA vote delineating ways in which the law poses a threat to religious liberty. The report’s author, Ryan T. Anderson—a supporter of “ex-gay” therapy that seeks to change sexual orientation—stresses that, unlike race, sexual orientation is behavioral and malleable. “Unlike race, sexual orientation and gender identity are usually understood to include behaviors,” he writes. The report quotes scholars who say sexual orientation can be changed. Arguments like Anderson’s may hurt the religious liberty cause more than anything; as public opinion has come to view sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic and a defining feature of identity, such views have come to be viewed as motivated by animus against gays and lesbians.</p>
<p>Ultimately, Besen points out, nondiscrimination comes down to a question of tolerance. “People are going to have to deal with people that may not agree with them,” he says. </p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:25:55 +0000219165 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaMyth Buster: Latinos Are Not "Natural Conservatives"http://blog.prospect.org/article/myth-buster-latinos-are-not-natural-conservatives
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/8143121441_a68c89a946_b.jpg?itok=QwGXHMbQ" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Flickr/The Barack Obama Campaign</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class="dropcap">L</span>atinos, the conventional wisdom on the right goes, are ripe for conservatives' electoral picking. A majority are Catholic, family-oriented, and hardworking. If only Republicans could change their thinking on immigration—turning away from the Mitt Romney "self-deportation" approach—this constituency would naturally flock to the party of Reagan. </p>
<p>But a recent <a href="http://publicreligion.org/research/2013/09/hispanic-values-survey-2013/">poll</a> from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) confirms what data geeks have been saying for years: The Latinos-are-conservatives-at-heart idea is little more than Republican myth-making. Not only does this constituency strongly identify with Democrats on the key social issues that matter to movement conservatives—abortion and same-sex marriage—they are more liberal than most Americans. And hardworking or not, Latinos are concerned with rising inequality and favor public investment in the economy. All this is bad news for those who think the GOP is a rebrand away from cashing in on a Latino giveaway. “Republicans clearly have a serious brand and issue platform problem among Hispanics,” says PRRI CEO Robert Jones.</p>
<p>The argument that Latinos are natural conservatives rests on the fact that this group is more religious than the population at large, and that religiosity correlates with Republican Party affiliation. Indeed, according to the PRRI study, 53 percent of Latinos identify as Catholic, 25 percent as Protestant, and 12 percent are religiously unaffiliated. But while the GOP has branded itself as the home of the faithful, the correlation between religiosity and affiliation with the Republican Party only holds for white voters. The latest <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/148361/religion-party-strongly-linked-among-whites-not-blacks.aspx">Gallup</a> numbers show 62 percent of "very religious" whites identify as Republicans, but this number shrinks to 25 percent for Hispanics. A mere 9 percent of very religious blacks identify as Republicans. </p>
<p>Why the divergence? Religiosity does not consistently translate with policy preferences. PRRI found that a solid majority (55 percent) of Hispanics favor allowing gay and lesbian Americans to marry. That compares with 54 percent of Americans overall who hold this view. On abortion, this constituency is slightly more conservative: Fifty-two percent say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases while 48 percent say their opinion on abortion depends on the circumstances. </p>
<p>There is some good news for conservative strategists in the PRRI report. The percentage of Latinos who identify as evangelical Protestants jumps by 6 percent between childhood and adulthood, and opposition to same-sex marriage stands at a whopping 89 percent with this group. But there is a countervailing trend among Hispanics that is often overlooked. Just as many—7 percent—lose their religion during that time period. “While the media and political strategists have noted the increase in evangelical Protestant affiliation as Catholic identity has declined, most have ignored the growing numbers of unaffiliated Hispanics, who rival the size of evangelicals, and are a critical part of the future of Hispanic politics,” says Juhem Navarro-Rivera, a PRRI research associate.</p>
<p>But whether opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage translates into support for Republican candidates depends also on <em>how important</em> these issues are to voters. Here's more bad news: Unlike a majority of Republican voters, Latinos place little importance on social issues. Only 22 percent and 32 percent respectively say gay marriage and abortion are critical issues facing the country today. Rather, they cited jobs and unemployment (72 percent), rising health-care costs (65 percent), and the quality of public schools (55 percent) as the most important issues facing the country. They also favor government intervention in the economy. Roughly 6 in 10 support higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy to support spending more on infrastructure and education. By similar margins, Hispanics say government should do more to address the gap between rich and poor and guarantee health care for all. </p>
<p>Given where Latinos stand on all the fundamentals, it is no surprise that this group holds a negative view of the Republican Party. While 43 percent say "cares about people like you" describes the Democrats, only 29 percent say this describes the Republicans. </p>
<p>The takeaway for Republican strategist should be clear. The problems the party has in appealing to Latinos mirror the problems the party has in appealing to younger, non-white voters: It is perceived as the party of the wealthy, fundamentally unconcerned with the economic issues affecting ordinary Americans. Since their defeat in the 2012 election, Republicans have searched for a quick fix to their electoral problems, but the PRRI report shows that if the GOP wants to make inroads with Latino and other non-white minority voters, it needs a lot more than a rebrand. </p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:16:00 +0000218840 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaImmigration Reform's Make-or-Break Moment?http://blog.prospect.org/article/immigration-reforms-make-or-break-moment
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"></span></p>
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/immigrationwide_1.jpg?itok=2uW7HDH2" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<p>Activists for immigration reform block the intersection of Independence Avenue and New Jersey Avenue outside Capitol Hill last week.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p><span class="dropcap">E</span>arlier this week, top advocates of immigration reform met at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the National Democrat Network (NDN), a center-left think tank, to discuss the prospects of getting a bill through Congress by year's end. "The fundamentals are stronger than at any time during the last ten years," Tamar Jacoby, president and CEO of ImmigrationWorks USA, told the audience. "[Immigration reform] is a plane on the runway ready to take off."</p>
<p>Skeptics might counter that the jet has been sitting on the tarmac for months. In early June, House Speaker John Boehner <a href="http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/06/10/house-speaker-john-boehner-aims-to-have-immigration-reform-bill-by-summer/">said</a> immigration reform was set to see the president’s desk by the end of the summer. The White House <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57588342/obama-pass-immigration-reform-by-end-of-the-summer/">said</a> the same thing. The Senate <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/senate-immigration-reform-bill_n_3511664.html">passed an omnibus bill in July</a>, but August recess came and went without legislation getting through the House. Now, with the looming budget battle soaking up the Beltway’s oxygen, it seems House Republicans intend to slow-walk the bill to death.</p>
<p>But this perception, immigrant-rights supporters contend, rests largely on speculation—and the broad narrative that Republicans can't get anything done. "I've been surprised at how House Republicans' actions haven't been taken seriously," says Simon Rosenberg, NDN's president and founder. "In July, the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security had the single most constructive bill of the entire debate." Rosenberg pointed out that immigration reform is different from Obamacare or the budget: Republicans have not taken an oppositional stance to the president. "This issue has its own set of internal politics, its own trajectory, and committee chairmen working in a constructive manner," he said.</p>
<p>It is true that without more specific comments from House leadership—Boehner has been quiet on the issue since Congress returned from its recess—it's nearly impossible to predict the fate of reform. <span class="pullquote" style="display:none;">Over the past few days, there have been encouraging signs that immigration reform hasn't totally fallen off the radar</span>Over the past few days, there have been encouraging signs that the issue hasn't totally fallen off the radar: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who founded advocacy group Fwd.us to push for reform, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/mark-zuckerberg-immigration-97012.html">is in town</a>, and yesterday House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/outside-groups-try-to-revive-immigration-reform-96950.html">met with immigration-reform bigwigs</a>, including Zuckerberg, on Capitol Hill.</p>
<p>Given how quickly the political winds could shift, a more fruitful question to consider is <em>how</em> immigration reform passes if House Republicans can be convinced to move it forward.</p>
<p>House Republicans, wary of invoking the specter of Obamacare, are not going to pass an omnibus immigration bill—either the Senate's or their own. The approach, as we've seen from the number of immigration-related bills that passed out of committee over the summer, <a href="http://www.latintimes.com/articles/8516/20130919/immigration-reform-2013-obama-house-republicans-undocumented.htm">will be piecemeal</a>. Regardless of this difference, Republicans in the House have accepted the broad architecture of the Senate bill: increased enforcement, an expansion in the number of employment-based visas for both high- and low-skilled workers, and a solution to the undocumented problem. But on each of these points, the fault lines and potential pitfalls in the House differ from in the Senate.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr">The Undocumented</h3>
<p>The flash point in the current debate continues to be what to do with the undocumented population, which is estimated at 11 million people. Democrats' hard line is that they will not accept any deal that doesn't grant citizenship to a large portion of this group. The Senate bill met this requirement: Almost everyone gets legal status after registering with the government, and after ten years you're eligible to apply for naturalization. House Republicans, who in 2005 voted simply to deport all 11 million people, have been far more stingy. They've insisted that any solution must "respect the rule of law," which means having the undocumented admit fault and pay fines and penalties. In addition, there should be "no special path" for those currently here illegally to become U.S. citizens. It's a fuzzy concept, but "no special path" basically means we should not create a unique category for this group that lets them "get ahead in line" of those in the legal immigration system. Because the Senate bill creates the new category of "registered provisional immigrant" to deal with the undocumented, it's a no-go in the House.</p>
<p>One solution to this impasse that seems to be getting more and more traction with policy types and lawmakers is not to include a named "pathway to citizenship" in a House bill. <span class="pullquote" style="display:none;">One solution that seems to be getting traction with policy types and lawmakers is not to include a named "pathway to citizenship" in the House's version of immigration reform.</span> In place of it, the House bill would provide a "pathway to legalization" that includes admitting guilt as well as paying back taxes and a penalty fee. After the undocumented achieved legal status, they would be merged into existing immigration channels.</p>
<p>But remember that Dems will only accept a deal that ultimately leads to a good chunk of the undocumented getting citizenship. Here's the workaround: Combine a bill that's silent on citizenship with one that provides citizenship to what are called "Dreamers," undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. As U.S. citizens, Dreamers could then sponsor their parents for naturalization. Those without citizen children could apply for it under the employment-based immigration system.</p>
<p>Whether Democrats accept this solution depends on how many of the 11 million this proposal covers. The devil's in the details. Under current law, if you're in the country illegally for more than 180 days, you're banned from re-entry for three years. That number jumps to ten if you're here without papers for a year. But even if you're willing to go back to your country of origin and wait, forget about immigrating if you don't have family here and aren't highly educated. Currently, the United States allots a mere 5,000 visas per year for low-skilled laborers, and the system has a backlog of ten years. "We could negotiate with Republicans a policy that has the same outcome as the Senate bill," Sharry said. But if Republicans only provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers but don't increase caps on low-skilled immigration or waive the three- and ten-year bans, "that's not something we'd accept."</p>
<h3 dir="ltr">Employment-Based Immigration</h3>
<p>There is a broad consensus among lawmakers that we need more visas for high-skilled workers. The Senate bill raised the cap from 65,000 to 110,000, and the House proposal would put that number at 155,000. It's low-skilled immigration that's the source of contention. Business wants a larger pool of low-skilled workers to meet demand and keep costs low while labor fears too large an influx will depress wages and weaken employment protections for American workers. The Senate bill allots 20,000 "W" visas for low-skilled workers in the first few years, which ramps up to 220,000. Unlike current visas for low-skilled workers, if you have a "W" visa for long enough, you can use it to apply for citizenship—it's another door.</p>
<p>The process in the House presents an opportunity to revisit these numbers. <span class="pullquote" style="display:none;">"Republicans in the House would like to gut the Senate deal on 'W' visas, which could threaten the entire reform project."</span>"Republicans in the House would like to gut the Senate deal on 'W' visas, which could threaten the entire reform project," Sharry says. Jacoby, whose group represents small-business owners who rely on low-skilled labor, counters that failing to set levels high enough could lead to a bottleneck that culminates in another significant population of undocumented immigrants decades down the road. While the precise number of visas allotted is a point of contention and a pitfall, it is far less likely to derail reform than the issue of the undocumented. After all, there is broad agreement on low-skilled immigration: We need more of it.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr">Enforcement</h3>
<p>It was a <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/19/news/la-pn-immigration-senate-border-security-20130619">late-in-the-game deal</a> to increase border enforcement that saved immigration reform in the Senate. In addition to adding 10,000 Border Patrol agents to the current force, the Senate bill would implement a nationwide employment-verification system—currently, employers aren't all required to check your citizenship status—and require Homeland Security to achieve "operational control" of the Southern border. Like "no special path," "operational control" is intentionally fuzzy—it can either mean anything from sealing the border completely to making sure each segment of it has adequate staffing.</p>
<p>To get a bill passed, Democrats basically agreed to throw billions of dollars at the border, which critics have lambasted as wasteful. But Dems are far less concerned with how much we spend than with the way enforcement affects the undocumented. For this reason, advocates for immigrants' rights have made it clear they will walk away if reform contains something like the SAFE Act, a <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/323061-the-safe-act-is-not-safe-for-immigrants-and-their-families" style="line-height: 1.538em;">harsh anti-immigrant bill that passed the House Judiciary Committee this summer</a>; it would make undocumented presence in the country a criminal offense, authorize local law-enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law, and require the Department of Homeland Security to throw violators in jail for even the smallest infractions. The SAFE Act is consistent with the "self-deportation" approach to dealing with the undocumented: The point is to make their lives so miserable, they leave. But some immigrant-rights advocates are open to more moderate proposals like the <a href="http://homeland.house.gov/bill/hr-1417-border-security-results-act-2013" style="line-height: 1.538em;">RESULTS Act</a>, which passed the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security in July and resembles a pared-down version of the Senate bill on enforcement. In deciphering whether a deal can be reached, the amount of spending—wasteful or not—seems to matter less than whether the approach shrinks the path to citizenship. <span class="pullquote" style="display:none;">The amount of spending on enforcement matters less than whether the approach shrinks the path to citizenship.</span>So long as enforcement proposals don't knock off too many of the undocumented from being eligible, Democrats are likely to accept them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span class="dropcap">W</span>hen it comes to policy, these are the fault lines and deal breakers. But of course, legislators need to be pushed to act—it's that "momentum" thing. While House Republicans have shouldered a lot of the criticism for failing to move immigration reform forward in the House, observers have started to notice that House Democrats haven't exactly been pushing the point, either. They'll need to do this if anything is going to get passed. "[House Chair of the Judiciary Committee] Bob Goodlatte said he thinks there will be votes in October, and he has the power to bring it up," Rosenberg said. "Democrats need to lean in and accept Republicans at face value—they should praise him, start negotiating dates on the calendar, and put some ideas on the table about what we want." However, Democrats' taking action does not include President Obama, whose involvement would make the issue radioactive to Republicans. The White House realizes this; Obama has kept his involvement behind the scenes and only gone as far as joining the chorus of critics saying Boehner needs to take initiative.</p>
<p>Finally, there's the timing question, and let's get real: Immigration reform is not passing in October, which will be totally consumed by budget negotiations. Whether it gets done by the end of the congressional term, in December, depends on whether those championing reform can be loud enough, and the various factions can compromise. Asking whether immigration reform is dead is tantamount to asking whether this will happen. It might be unsatisfying, but the real answer is, who knows?</p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:35:49 +0000218779 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel AranaWhat Happens If Immigration Reform Fails?http://blog.prospect.org/article/what-happens-if-immigration-reform-fails
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p dir="ltr"><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"></span></p>
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://blog.prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/boehnerwide.jpg?itok=24MiLINt" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<p>House Speaker John Boehner outside the White House last week</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-6e6baafb-0d45-39c0-5920-1a8a9bcc8954"><span class="dropcap">H</span>ouse Republicans' latest </span><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/immigration-reform-95980.html">excuse for not passing immigration reform</a>—that the congressional calendar is too stuffed with shutdowns and Syria dilemmas—is pretty silly. First, the debt ceiling hasn’t dropped into the fall session unceremoniously from the sky—this is an annual responsibility they knew would return since the last hellish time they raised our borrowing limit. Second, there’s absolutely nothing stopping the House from passing immigration reform ASAP. In a single day, Republican legislators could bring the Senate immigration bill for a floor vote in the House, where conventional wisdom says it has the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-house-pass-senate-immigration-bill/story?id=19919807">votes to pass</a>. "This is no longer a debate about policy. We've had ten years of debate," says Muzaffar Chishti, director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. "Every element of the policy discussion has been held and held repeatedly."</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-6e6baafb-0d45-39c0-5920-1a8a9bcc8954">It's all about the politics, which for immigration means it's all about the stubborn, second-grader antics of Republican leaders. The big question is whether Speaker John Boehner is willing to risk his speakership by moving forward on immigration reform—despite staunch opposition from conservative members of his caucus, who fear </span><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-2013-tea-party-93581.html">retaliation from the Tea Party wing of the Republican base</a>. With the mid-term elections coming up in 14 months, this year—and next year—may be a bust. National politics—not local, district level politics—is the magic dust that gets immigration reform passed. Every immigration-reform bill that's ever made it to the law books has sailed into Congress in advance of a presidential-election year. Advocates may have to wait until 2016 if the House conveniently forgets the current bill this fall.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-6e6baafb-0d45-39c0-5920-1a8a9bcc8954">These supporters are reluctant to concede defeat—they point out that pressure from the broad coalition of interests, including business and faith groups, is not going away, and that lack of reform is causing daily harm. "There's active pain raining down on immigrant communities and families—that's a powerful motivator," says Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank.<span class="pullquote" style="display:none;">"There's active pain raining down on immigrant communities and families—that's a powerful motivator."</span> Over the August recess, dozens of immigrant-advocacy groups banded together under the name </span><a href="http://www.allianceforcitizenship.org/">Alliance for Citizenship</a> to <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/advocates-prepare-to-press-for-citizenship-as-congress-leaves-for-recess-with-little-done-on-immigration-reform-20130801">push for immigration reform</a> at town halls and through marches and rallies. But the crisis in Syria seems to have dampened some of the enthusiasm for reform—or at least put legislators' focus elsewhere.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-6e6baafb-0d45-39c0-5920-1a8a9bcc8954">What happens if immigration reform fails? The first thing to consider is whether the bill fails completely, or whether Democrats try to break off and pass pieces of the legislation separately. This is what happened after the failed 2007-2008 push for reform, when Democrats introduced the DREAM Act—which would have legalized undocumented immigrants (often referred to as "Dreamers") brought to the United States as children—in the Senate, where it failed to overcome a filibuster. Chishti says Democrats are less likely to propose such a deal. It would be an ideal outcome for Republicans: They could point to their effort to provide relief for a select group of the most vulnerable immigrants and chastise Democrats for insisting on a larger deal that helps them lock down the Latino vote. "</span>If the Republicans decide to do that, it will be a curve ball which Democrats will have difficulty dealing with," Chishti says.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-6e6baafb-0d45-39c0-5920-1a8a9bcc8954">If House Republicans don't muster up the votes to pass a standalone bill, the blame for the failure of immigration reform lies squarely with them: The Democrats in the Senate, after all, passed a broad, bipartisan bill, and the Republicans in the House passed nothing despite having significant lead-time.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-6e6baafb-0d45-39c0-5920-1a8a9bcc8954"><span class="dropcap">T</span>he lasting, nonpolitical effect of failing to pass immigration reform will be on the lives of immigrants. We know which group this will hurt most: the estimated 11 million undocumented living in the country who can't get driver's licenses, pursue higher education, get home loans, or proceed through the other channels of self-advancement that have made America a destination for the disadvantaged. Cities and municipalities with large immigrant populations—New York, Miami, Los Angeles—can't integrate them effectively into the fabric of their communities. States frustrated with inaction at the federal level will continue to pass their own measures seeking to address the problem; we should prepare ourselves for another round of states passing legislation like Arizona's SB 1070, </span><a href="https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/state-anti-immigrant-laws">a harsh anti-immigration measure that inspired a number of copycat bills in five other states</a>. The Obama administration's record ramp-up in deportations will continue unabated, splitting up families and uprooting immigrants who have lived in their communities for decades.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-6e6baafb-0d45-39c0-5920-1a8a9bcc8954">While the issue of what to do with the 11 million undocumented tends to suck up most of the political oxygen around immigration reform, the most significant cost may come from failing to reform the </span>legal migration system. As it stands, our immigration system blunts our competitive economic edge: It allocates an insufficient number of visas for high-skilled workers, does not provide enough low-skilled workers to meet the industry demand, and penalizes employers who try to work around the shortage by hiring undocumented people. Ultimately, it is the dysfunction of the legal system that has led to our large undocumented population. If Republicans are serious about not wanting to "be in the same boat" in 20 years—a position they've stressed over the course of the immigration debate—the best way they can ensure this is not to further feed our bloated enforcement capabilities, but to address the root of the problem.</p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-6e6baafb-0d45-39c0-5920-1a8a9bcc8954">It is hard to gauge the chances for passing an immigration bill before the current congressional calendar runs out in December, but if it fails, it is not a matter of the agenda being too full; it is entirely in the House leadership's hands, which must decide between appeasing the radicals among its base and the long-term viability of the party. One thing is clear, though: Neither the pressure from the broad coalition that supports reform is going away, nor is the need for reform. "The people who thought that this would take care of itself by attrition—the 'self-deportation' folks—that's not happening," </span>Chishti says. "We've seen no evidence that because of impatience with Washington, people are going home."</p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:45:03 +0000218697 at http://blog.prospect.orgGabriel Arana